Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFERENCE (DURHAM COUNTY).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons transferred from the county of Durham from 1932 up to the most recent date?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): In the answer to a Question by the hon. Member on the 16th May, 1939, I gave the figures of persons transferred from the county of Durham for each year from 1932 to 1938 inclusive. The corresponding figures for the six months January to June, 1939, are 2,719 men, 1,236 women, 453 boys and 836 girls: total 5,244. Later figures are not available.

TRADING ESTATE FACTORIES.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of factories opened on the Team Valley Trading Estate and the Pallions and St. Helen's Trading Sites, respectively; and the number of persons that have been placed in employment?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that on 31st January the number of factories opened and in production on the Team Valley, Pallion and St. Helen's Auckland Estates was 117, 4 and 5 respectively; the number of persons employed in those factories was 4,443, 369 and 841 respectively.

Mr. Stewart: Is it the Government's intention to build factories to turn out Government work and other kinds of work on the Team Valley Estate and the Pallions and St. Helen's sites?

Mr. Brown: I have always made every effort to get every kind of work, Government and otherwise, for these admirable estates.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the labour resources and other resources of the county of Durham are not fully utilised by the Government; and is he going to embark on a policy which will fully utilise these resources?

Mr. Brown: The House knows that I have persistently pressed that policy, but there are technical and strategic considerations about certain kinds of war effort which have to be weighed by Government Departments before giving contracts.

Mr. Stewart: Is it the Government's intention to build factories on these sites?

Mr. Brown: I have said so, subject, of course, to strategic and other considerations.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the persons employed are men over 18?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice, but I will get the figures if the hon. Member would like to have them.

SHIPBUILDING, GREENOCK AREA.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour what number of men belonging to the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry were recorded as unemployed at 15th February, or last convenient date, in the Greenock area; and what percentage this represents of the total in the industry there?

Mr. E. Brown: The latest figures at present available are those relating to 15th January, which have already been supplied to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass these figures on to the newly appointed Controller of Shipbuilding?

Mr. Brown: The Controller of Shipbuilding is well aware of the figures, not only about this particular town, but of the whole area.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the answer to my Supplementary Question on the previous


occasion he stated that he would pass these figures on to the Controller of Shipbuilding. And has he done so?

Mr. Brown: As I have said the Controller of Shipbuilding is well aware of the figures, and, as a matter of fact, we have been discussing figures which will not be ready until 5th March, and not only that, but the possibilities in the months ahead.

STATISTICS (DURHAM COUNTY).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at Ashington, Blyth, Bedlington and Morpeth for the past month; and the comparative figures in August 1939?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the Official Report.

Mr. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Admiralty to these figures and point out that shipping is the most effective means of reducing unemployment in that area?

Following is the statement:

The Table below shows the total numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges in question at 15th January, 1940, and 14th August, 1939.

Employment Exchanges.
15th January, 1940.
14th August, 1939.


Ashington
1,734
1,129


Blyth
1,607
1,186


Bedlington Station.
792
488


Morpeth
542
324

ALLOWANCES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour the number of recipients of unemployment allowance who have not received any increase in their allowances to meet the increased cost of living owing to the operation of the wage-stop; and whether the Unemployment Assistance Board proposes to review the existing wage-stops in those cases?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins)

and Rhondda East (Mr. Mainwaring) on 25th January.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask whether the Unemployment Assistance Board reports at any stage? Otherwise the cost of living can increase and these men get no increase in wages.

Mr. Brown: As far as I know there is no decision dealing with a general review, but in the answer to which I have referred, I pointed out that officers have been reminded by the board that under the new Regulations regard must be had to any special circumstances or needs of an exceptional character.

Mr. A. Jenkins: May I ask whether a general instruction has been issued to officers of the board to grant increases in these cases of wage-stops?

Mr. Brown: They have been reminded and I would also point out that in a number of cases where need has existed allowances in excess of the wage-stop have been granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

PREVENTION OF EVASION REGULATIONS.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the fact that there are hundreds of young men who have been dismissed from their work after the Government had called them up for attestation for military service, and the difficulty they encounter in finding fresh employment between that date and the date of their call for service in the forces, and the unenviable position they will be in when they return, without employment, to civil life, and as the employers concerned will have escaped their obligations under the Defence of the Realm Act, he will state why no employers have been prosecuted for this form of victimisation, and take steps to publish a list of all such employers, and to exhibit same in some prominent place or places in all districts concerned?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 8th February on this subject. Since the National Service (Armed Forces) (Prevention of Evasion) Regulations were made, none of the cases of dismissal from employment, into which my inquiries have been completed, has revealed sufficient


evidence of the contravention of the Regulations to justify my taking proceedings against the employer.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the fact that many of these young men who have been dismissed from employment are rejected on medical grounds when they go up for medical examination, will the Government not do something to protect them against unscrupulous and unpatriotic employers who undoubtedly are victimising them because they have been called up by the Government for service?

Mr. Brown: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to this matter, but I would point out that the issues which may arise from prosecutions, whether successful or unsuccessful, are widespread, and the House would not wish me to proceed with a prosecution unless I have evidence which would give a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

Mr. Dobbie: In those cases where young men who have been called up for service have been dismissed by their employers, and then rejected for service on a medical examination, have not the Government some responsibility to prosecute such an employer or do something for the young man?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, if the evidence is as the hon. Member states, but we have made the most persistent and careful inquiries into this matter. The question is to get the evidence in a form in which we can prosecute successfully.

Mr. Dobbie: Is not the best evidence the fact that young men who have been rejected on medical examination are still unemployed?

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a large number of cases the young men who have been called up for service, and are willing to go, are much embittered by this kind of treatment, and will he give serious attention to it with a view of introducing legislation?

Mr. Brown: In the answer to which I have referred I pointed out that there have been 252 complaints made to me and that of these 63 are down for further investigation. As I have said in my answer, none of the cases of dismissal in which my inquiries have been completed, has revealed sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution.

Mr. Dobbie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special attention to the matter if I give him the particulars of two cases of youths who have been rejected on medical grounds?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I shall be keen to have such evidence.

HARDSHIP TRIBUNALS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour how many appeals have been made to the Umpire against the decisions of the hardship tribunals under the Military Service Acts; how many of the appeals were made by the persons affected and how many by the Minister; whether he will state the results of the appeals and give particulars; and will he publish those decisions of the Umpire which have laid down general principles for the guidance of hardship tribunals?

Mr. E. Brown: 401 appeals have been made to the Umpire under the Military Training Act and the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. Of these appeals 115 have been made by the applicants and 286 on behalf of the Minister. Up to 15th February, 1940, the Umpire had granted postponement in 127 cases and refused it in 41. Selected decisions of the Umpire laying down general principles will be published in a monthly pamphlet which will be on sale. I should like to make it clear that a large proportion of the appeals by the Minister were made on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate at what date this publication will be issued in view of its importance?

Mr. Brown: I will do it as quickly as I can.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many applications are still outstanding, and how many appeals have been granted on compassionate grounds due to the applicant being the only son of a widow?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that on a Supplementary Question, but a comparison between the total applications and the figures I have given will give the hon. Member the answer.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (PEACE PLEDGE UNION).

Sir William Davison: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent statement by a


judge who is chairman of the East and West Riding Conscientious Objectors' Tribunal as to the subversive activities of a body known as the Peace Pledge Union, who are picketing Employment Exchanges and endeavouring to induce men to join their organisation and avoid military service by claiming to be conscientious objectors, for which purpose special instructional classes have been arranged to supply objectors with particulars of the conscientious objections they should submit to the tribunals and as to the replies they should give when questioned; and what action is being taken by the Government in the matter?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): Yes, Sir. While there was general agreement that provision should be made in the Military Service Acts for the special treatment of conscientious objectors, and that the Defence Regulations should be so drawn as not to interfere with the ordinary propagation of opinions I believe there is a widespread view that such activities as are referred to in the Question amount to an abuse. The activities of this organisation are being carefully watched, and the question whether special measures are called for will be kept in view.

Sir W. Davison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said, may I ask him whether he is aware that the tolerance by the Government for so long of the activities of this society is the amazement of our friends, and is holding us up to the ridicule of our enemies?

Mr. T. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to some of the statements made by Judge Stewart when dealing with these cases; and, if so, has he deemed it wise or otherwise, in view of the Prime Minister's definite statement, to take any steps in the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: My attention has been called to a statement made by Judge Stewart. As I have said, the whole matter is being very carefully considered.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the recent statement reflects very seriously upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury); and does he intend therefore to take action against the right hon. Gentleman and also the Christian churches, as being subversive?

Sir J. Anderson: I think a fair distinction should be drawn between a view which is genuinely held and certain methods of endeavouring to induce people to take advantage of the opinions of others.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR (EXEMPTION).

Mr. Levy: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of labour for agriculture; whether he was consulted before the decision was taken to give exemption from military service for six months in the cases of essential agricultural workers aged 20 years; and whether it is proposed to call up these men when their period of exemption expires?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): The steps taken to ensure an adequate supply of labour for agriculture include the fixing of the age of reservation for farmers and most classes of farm workers at the low level of 21 years; the arrangements for postponing the calling up of men liable for military service where their immediate calling up would disorganise farm operations; and various steps to augment the existing labour force such as the recruitment and training of the Women's Land Army, the diversion to agriculture, wherever possible, of unemployed men with previous agricultural experience, and the loan of soldiers for harvest and similar operations. The arrangements for the postponement of military service were adopted on the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to meet the position that seemed likely to arise on many farms where the calling up of men liable for military service would seriously interfere with farming operations. If the position remains unchanged at the end of the period of postponement, and if a farmer can show that he has attempted to make other arrangements but without success, an application for the extension of the period will be considered.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Do we understand from the Minister of Agriculture that he will do everything possible to secure, in view of the importance of production on the land, that no difficulty will be placed in the way of obtaining an adequate volume of farm labour?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We have to fit in with the general scheme of things in time of war, but we are doing all we can to mitigate hardships.

Mr. Levy: On the face of it, is it not obvious that it will certainly disorganise agriculture if the men working on the land are called up, unless some other adequate provision is made first?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That question we are dealing with at the present moment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture the approximate number of applications made up to date by farmers for the postponement of calling up of agricultural workers who became 20 years of age between the 2nd December and 31st December last; and whether, in view of the fact that only key-men for whom substitutes cannot be found are to be granted postponement, he can give an indication as to what category of agricultural workers it is officially considered substitutes can be found for?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Applications for postponement of calling up have to be sent in the first instance to county war agricultural executive committees who undertake the necessary investigations before sending them on to my Department. Many of these applications, which relate to men only required to register on Saturday last, will not be forwarded to the Ministry until the end of this week and I am unable at present to give the information asked for in the first part of the Question.
As regards the second part, there must be many cases in which, by re-arrangement of duties, valuable use can be made of men registered as unemployed agricultural workers, unemployed men from other occupations with former agricultural experience who are available to fill agricultural vacancies of various kinds, and members of the Women's Land Army. It is recognised that substitute labour is not suitable for all forms of farm work, and it was because, for various reasons, substitution was not always practicable, that the arrangements for the postponement of service were made.

Sir T. Moore: Would it not be a good idea if the Minister of Labour made a

survey of those agricultural workers who strayed into other jobs, so as to bring them back on to the land?

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING AND WAGES.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, in view of the fact that the internal wages level in several industries has recently been raised, what action it is proposed to take to safeguard the standard of living of workers in other industries who respond to the Government's appeal, and avoid making demands for wage increases at this time?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 31st January announcing the policy which the Government have adopted, and propose for the present to continue, of controlling the prices of certain staple foods by the use of public funds.

Mr. Simmonds: Is it not perfectly clear that workers who have received wage increases as well as those who on patriotic grounds have refrained from making these claims have the benefit of reduced food prices, and does he not think it is up to the Government to see what may be their obligations to the workers who do not press their claims for increases?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that a comparison of that kind can be drawn, because there are too many circumstances which lie behind industrial conditions which make for an increase or not in the wage rate.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no finality either in wages or hours?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, owing to the increased cost of living and their inability to augment the amount received by their own efforts, he will consider the urgency of increasing the pensions of disabled ex-service men, thus freeing these men from care as to their means of livelihood?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Sufficient experience has


not, in my judgment, as yet been gained of the course of prices to justify the Government in considering a general increase of the rates of pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (POLITICAL SITUATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any further statement to make respecting the political situation in India?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): No, Sir, I have nothing fresh to report to the House since the statement which I made in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 8th February.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information regarding reported incidents on the North-West Frontier?

Sir H. O'Neill: I have heard of no fresh incident.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, because rather serious reports are coming through?

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of Estate for the Home Department whether he is now able to state that the machinery for a further systematic review of the cases of refugees placed in Category "B" by an aliens tribunal is ready to function?

Sir J. Anderson: It has been decided to set up an Advisory Committee for each of the Civil Defence Regions to consider, inter alia, the cases of all Germans and Austrians placed in Category "B" by the tribunals and I am now completing the selection of personnel for these committees. This machinery will begin to function at an early date.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the fact that the announcement of these new committees was made considerably before Christmas, will the right hon. Gentleman speed up their functioning, as many refugees are prevented from doing work that would be valuable to the country owing to their not being de-restricted?

Sir J. Anderson: I have been doing everything possible to expedite the setting up of the committees.

Mr. Mander: Will there be any appeal from these new committees?

Sir J. Anderson: There can always be a reference to the Central Advisory Committee. That is at my discretion.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary the amount of employment and trade which has accrued to this country up to date from the admission of refugees who have already been allowed to start work here?

Sir J. Anderson: It is known that a number of refugees who have been allowed to start factories and businesses here have brought increased trade and employment to the country. Inquiries are being made as to the number and extent of these new undertakings and the amount of trade and employment created thereby, and at a later date I hope to publish a comprehensive statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESPIRATORY TUBERCULOSIS (METAL-GRINDING).

Mr. Marshall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the high rate of mortality among workers in the metal-grinding industry arising from silicosis and other respiratory diseases, and of the difficulty of establishing claims for compensation under the silicosis scheme; and in view of this, will he now consider amending the scheme in order to provide for the inclusion of other respiratory diseases which are certified by medical men to arise from the metal-grinding industry?

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that in 1938 the mortality rate of Sheffield grinders from respiratory tuberculosis, though it had greatly declined in recent years, was still higher than that of the general population of the city; but under the existing law there is no power to extend the silicosis compensation scheme, which covers silicosis accompanied by tuberculosis, to men not employed in the silica processes since 1927, or to other respiratory diseases. The question of legislation to make additional provision for workmen suffering from illness which is due to their employment but is not a specific industrial disease is a very diffi-


cult one, to which the attention of the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation has been drawn.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that the mortality among Sheffield grinders is estimated to be four times the general average of the country, and in view of that appalling mortality, is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do something to bring about some improvement?

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member will understand that I am concerned with diseases due to employment. As I have said, the problem of determining whether an illness which is not specific to a particular employment has, in fact, been caused by that employment or has arisen otherwise, is a very difficult practical question.

Mr. Marshall: Does not everything point to the fact that respiratory diseases do arise from that employment, and that this is testified by medical authorities, and in view of that, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely essential that the scheme should be extended to include respiratory diseases?

Sir J. Anderson: The matter has been referred by the Home Office to the Workmen's Compensation Commission but I repeat that the problem is not an easy one.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes taking to secure recruits for and retain the existing personnel of the Auxiliary Fire Service?

Sir J. Anderson: The recruitment of personnel for the Auxiliary Fire Service is in the hands of the local fire authorities, who are responsible for taking any necessary measures to secure suitable recruits. As regards the retention of existing personnel, I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular which I have recently addressed to local authorities, dealing with the reservation of whole-time personnel over the age of 30 and kindred matters.

Mr. Culverwell: While appreciating the step which the right hon. Gentleman has

taken, is he aware that large numbers of trained members of this service are leaving it for other employment, and could he not take some step to make recruiting a contractual obligation rather on the lines of the Territorial Army, in order to retain the personnel?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a very large question.

Mr. Ede: Is there any shortage in this service?

Sir J. Anderson: The position varies from district to district. In some areas, particularly where ordinary employment is good, there is a shortage of recruits for the service.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the incidence of the scheme of personal injuries as it applies to firemen and other voluntary workers, and see whether or not that scheme is preventing recruitment and losing recruits?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no reason to believe that that has acted as a deterrent.

STEEL SHELTERS.

Mr. Burke: asked the Home Secretary whether local authorities, instead of supplying one Anderson steel shelter for each household, may supply a larger type of steel shelter where two or more households are willing to share accommodation, thus effecting a saving in finance and material for shelters and for their erection?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. With a view to make the best use of our resources, advice in this sense was given to local authorities last autumn, and many local authorities are known to have acted on that advice.

BLACK-OUT (PEDESTRIANS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are a variety of luminous belts of considerable advantage to wearers during the black-out; and whether he will conduct experiments during the black-out with a view to testing the effectiveness and the degrees of luminosity of various types of these belts?

Sir J. Anderson: My Department has examined a large number of luminous articles suggested for wear by pedestrians


in the black-out. In general they have been found to possess no great advantage, as an aid to visibility, over a similar article made from ordinary white material. As the hon. Member will recollect, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has recommended pedestrians to wear, or carry, something white at night, or to use a torch pointed downwards to indicate their presence on the road. These precautions are likely to be more effective than luminous belts or other luminous articles.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister consider the possibility of having experiments made in Palace Yard so that hon. Members may see for themselves?

Sir W. Davison: Is it not the case that most people have a white handkerchief which they could very easily tie round their arm?

GREENOCK HARBOUR.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the deaths at Greenock Harbour through drowning since the commencement of the black-out now amount to 20; whether he has yet reached a decision regarding modification of the regulations to meet this situation; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Sir J. Anderson: As I promised in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question I have had inquiry made into the conditions at Greenock Harbour and I have been assured that there is an adequate number of lifebuoys and that these are being maintained in good condition. The lighting of the harbour appeared, however, to need attention and measures have been taken to provide modified lighting, to fence off the quays and to fix guard rails in dangerous places.

Mr. Gibson: Is this being made a general matter? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate on the previous occasion that he had in mind a modification of the regulations with regard to all harbours.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it is so much a matter of regulation as of intelligent action on the spot.

RED CROSS EMBLEM.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the

reasons why, in connection with the instructions recently issued by his Department to local authorities prohibiting the use of the red cross on air-raid precautions ambulances and on signs at entrances to first-aid posts, a distinction is drawn between the ambulances and first-aid posts of civil defence authorities and those of the military authorities, as both equally deal with casualties, the results of enemy action; and whether he will consult with the Army Council to obtain their consent to the use of the Geneva emblem by Civil Defence authorities in their casualty services in order to meet the convenience of air-raid precautions workers and the public in an emergency?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that this matter depends on the consent of the Army Council. It is governed by the Geneva Red Cross Convention, to which this country is a party. By the terms of that Convention the Red Cross emblem may only be used to protect or to indicate the medical services of the Armed Forces and the personnel and material of the voluntary aid societies which are authorised to assist them.

Sir R. Clarry: Is there no other way of getting temporary consent, during the war, to its use for A.R.P. or home service?

PERSONNEL (NUMBER).

Mr. Riley: asked the Home Secretary the total number of persons now serving in all categories of home defence, giving, if possible, the number occupied in full-time, part-time voluntary service, the number in training, and the number of men and women, respectively?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the Air-Raid General Precautions Services and the Auxiliary Fire Service. The number of paid volunteers in these Services in December was some 264,000, exclusive of the regular employés of local authorities who were engaged whole-time on civil defence duties. I am at present taking steps to obtain up-to-date information as to the effective number of unpaid volunteers in the Air-Raid Precautions Services.

CONTRACT, BRISTOL (BRICKS).

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Home Secretary with regard to the contract for 60,000 tons of bricks for the construction


of air-raid precautions shelters, recently placed with the London Brick Company by the Bristol Corporation, what was the maximum price per 1,000 bricks which his Department permitted the corporation to pay; what was the contract price per 1,000 bricks; and whether such bricks are available locally?

Sir J. Anderson: This contract was put out to public tender and there was no question of prescribing a maximum price. The tender of the London Brick Company was much more advantageous than any of the local tenders, both in price and also in rate of delivery.

Mr. Culverwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a coal shortage in Bristol; and that quite apart from this contract depriving local manufacturers of employment, it has caused an unnecessary burden to be placed on the railways at this time of acute difficulty; will he, in future, take into consideration the availability of local materials as well as the question of cost and, in addition, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that if the London Brick Company is allowed to undercut provincial brick factories, it will, in time, bankrupt them?

STEEL HELMETS ISSUE (BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. Salt: asked the Home Secretary whether there has been any delay in the issue of steel helmets to air-raid precautions wardens in the city of Birmingham; and whether such helmets will be issued to reserve wardens?

Sir J. Anderson: Birmingham has received all the steel helmets required to equip its authorised establishment of air-raid wardens. I regret that no equipment can be issued to volunteers enrolled in excess of the authorised establishment.

FOOTBALL PROHIBITION (BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. Salt: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the strong public feeling in Birmingham at the refusal of the chief constable to permit the opening of the St. Andrew's football ground; and whether, in view of the changed circumstances, he will make a new regulation to allow all sports grounds to be re-opened?

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the recent meeting of the

Birmingham City Council, at which the question of allowing first-class football matches to be played at the Birmingham football ground was discussed; and whether he is now prepared to issue a new order restoring the usual Saturday afternoon entertainment to the workers in all large cities?

Sir J. Anderson: I have been in communication with the chief constable and I am satisfied that he gave full weight to all the relevant considerations before he exercised his discretion under the Public Entertainments (Restriction) Order to prohibit the holding of football matches on this particular ground. I do not think it would be expedient to amend the Order, as my hon. Friends suggest, so as to deprive chief officers of police of their existing discretion to prohibit the opening of football grounds or other places of entertainment in individual cases where they consider that special risks are likely to arise.

Mr. Salt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Birmingham is the only town in England in which first-class football is disallowed; that all sections of the public in Birmingham are desirous that it should be permitted; further, that the chief constable who is the only dissentient, has agreed to accept the ruling of the city council but that this cannot be given owing to a technicality; and will he do something to end this deadlock?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman review this matter later if I bring him more evidence?

Sir J. Anderson: I am willing to consider any further relevant facts, but, as to the discretion of the local authorities, I cannot properly intervene in the matter.

EVACUATED CHILDREN (PARENTS' VISITS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the new provisional evacuation scheme, he will consider increasing the facilities for parents to visit their children; and whether, as an inducement, he will arrange that two free monthly travelling passes be granted to parents or guardians of children evacuated now or in the future?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I have no evidence to suggest that the special facilities already provided are not generally adequate. Parents in receipt of


unemployment assistance who cannot afford the specially reduced fares available under these arrangements may apply for special assistance to enable them to visit their children, and I do not think that any further payment from Exchequer funds would be justified at a time calling for every possible economy in the national expenditure. For visits to sick children parents in need can, of course, obtain help at any time from the evacuating authority at the expense of the Exchequer.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that one of the biggest factors in marring the success of evacuation schemes may be the parents' desire to see their children more frequently than they do, and, in the circumstances will he reconsider the decision in regard to this matter?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is speaking of the future scheme which has not yet come into operation. It will be necessary to review the considerations of that scheme when we come a little nearer to the actual event.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not very upsetting to the children to be frequently visited as suggested?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN AGENTS (ACTIVITIES).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the publication of a White Paper giving particulars of the manifold activities of German agents in this country prior to the outbreak of the war, including the number of such agents deported and the nature of their offences?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I do not think any information could properly be published beyond the particulars that were made public at the time.

Mr. Strauss: Is it not a fact that the reasons for keeping certain particulars secret before the war no longer exist, and that it would be of very great interest to the public if information regarding the activities of some of these agents were published now?

Sir J. Anderson: I think the reasons for withholding information of this kind became stronger with the outbreak of war.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the friends of these agents occupied very high places in this country?

Mr. Thurtle: In the Russian Embassy.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNAUTHORISED BILL-POSTING.

Mr. Denville: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to prohibit flyposting and wall-disfiguring by certain subversive organisations during the war and to provide that all printers and publishers shall supply, on request to the authorities, any information required to put down this practice?

Sir J. Anderson: Unauthorised bill-posting is or can be prohibited under local Act or by-law and, if seditious, can be dealt with under the ordinary law. The practical difficulty of detecting offenders who post bills on private property without permission would not, I think, be met by my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Denville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the name of the printer is not put on the posters and bills, and will be also make inquiries of the local police as to the number of churches, chapels and convents which have had their walls daubed with whitewash during the night, with an object to putting an end to this practice, as was done during the last war?

Sir J. Anderson: As my hon. Friend has indicated, the difficulty is precisely that of detecting the offenders, and with regard to the last part of the Supplementary Question, we are doing our best by enforcing the provisions concerning the names and addresses of the printers.

Mr. Thorne: What right has the individual against the person who has done the damage?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Are not these people agents of the enemy?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE-TO-HOUSE COLLECTIONS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary on what matters he intends to consult the Advisory Committee on the House-to-House Collections Act?

Sir J. Anderson: The Advisory Committee is being consulted at present on applications for orders under Section 3 of the Act exempting charities operating over


substantial parts of the country from the obligation to apply to police authorities for licences. I have not yet had occasion to refer any other point to them, but I shall not hesitate to consult them on any matter connected with the administration of the Act on which they could usefully advise me.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Advisory Committee willing to hear evidence both for and against applications for exemption?

Sir J. Anderson: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Home Secretary the number of hours worked by women and young persons at the Merriott Mouldings, Limited, on Sunday, 3rd December, 1939;on what date was the application received to enable the firm to extend the hours; on what date was an order made to enable hours to be extended; was there a breach of Section 77 of the Factories Act, 1937; and, if so, what action has been taken?

Sir J. Anderson: No application was received by my Department for authority to employ women and young persons in this factory on Sundays, and no order permitting such employment has been made. I am making inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Smith: asked the Home Secretary the maximum number of hours worked in a week during last December by women and young persons employed at the Merriott Mouldings, Limited, and the aircraft factory in the south-western district which has been notified to him; the number of hours at present worked; and what are the hours worked on a Sunday?

Sir J. Anderson: The maximum hours of employment, of women and young persons, permitted in the first mentioned factory during last December, and at present, are those normally allowed by the Factories Act. The maximum weekly hours permitted during the same period in the aircraft factory to which I gather the hon. Member refers have been 57 for women and young persons over 16 years, and

44 for those under 16. Sunday employment of such persons has not been authorised in either case.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman look over the correspondence which has passed?

Sir J. Anderson: I am looking into the matter.

Mr. Smith: asked the Home Secretary what is the procedure followed when the factory inspector makes a report to the Home Office to enable them to decide whether a formal order is necessary in any particular case; who authorises any temporary measure; are the provisions of the Factories Act and the Emergency Powers Regulations applied in these cases; whether it is with his knowledge or approval that before orders have been made in some cases factory inspectors have intimated verbally to employers that no prosecutions will follow certain breaches of the Factories Act; by what authority are young persons and women being employed at night in any factories; and when it is expected that the report will be issued showing the changes allowed since September, 1939?

Sir J. Anderson: The report and other relevant information are considered and a decision is taken on my authority and responsibility; and it is with my knowledge and approval that, as explained in my statement of 7th December, the inspector often intimates to the firm that, pending a decision and as a provisional and temporary measure, objection will not be raised to certain changes of hours. The Factories Act allows the employment of boys over 16 at night in some classes of work; apart from this, women or young persons may not be employed in factories at night without my authority. The promised report will, I hope, be completed by the end of this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF LONDON FIRE INQUEST.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the inquest on the fire and explosion which took place in Knightrider Street, E.G., on 4th August, has been spread over six months, and occupied 26 days; that the legal costs, which will ultimately be borne by the ratepayers, are already enormous; and will he represent to the City coroner


that, in the interests of economy, the proceedings should be brought to a conclusion at a reasonably early date?

Sir J. Anderson: The question what inquiries are necessary to enable the coroner to discharge his statutory responsibility is one entirely for him. I have no jurisdiction in the matter, but I am informed by the coroner that he does not expect that the concluding stages of this inquest will occupy more than a few days.

Mr. Morrison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can make representations to the coroner about a matter which is rapidly becoming a public scandal? Thousands and thousands of pounds are being unnecessarily spent in deciding an issue which afterwards will have to be fought in the law courts, and, in any case, whatever the result, the ratepayers will have to pay.

Sir J. Anderson: The House will realise that the coroner is in no way under my jurisdiction. I have been in communication with him, the result of which I have given in my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND (BRITISH VOLUNTEERS).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Home Secretary whether every visa facility will be given to British subjects who desire to serve in Finland?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to exit permits. No difficulties will be placed in the way of British subjects who desire to serve in Finland if they are volunteers approved by the Finnish Aid Bureau.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Prime Minister whether British citizens who volunteer for service in Finland will be given a military pension if they are unable to work through wounds and disabilities due to service in Finland; and whether dependants will be provided with pensions should the breadwinner be killed in action?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that the terms of service of British subjects who volunteer for service in an International Force to operate in Finland have been arranged between the Finnish Aid Bureau and the Finnish Government.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not rather unjust, and a grave contradiction, that the League of Nations have agreed to give assistance, and the Government are giving arms and permits to these men to go, and then, when it comes to giving the men pensions if they are wounded, or pensions for their dependants if they are killed, you refuse to give them pensions when they have done the work you believed they ought to do?

The Prime Minister: I think the matter of the terms on which volunteers serve in these international forces is appropriately arranged by those conducting the arrangements here, for enlistment of the forces, and the Finnish Government.

Mr. Garro Jones: Cannot the Prime Minister give the House some assurance that these terms, as arranged, do make reasonable provision for these men in the way of pensions?

The Prime Minister: They are volunteers and it is not a matter with which we are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER.

Dr. Little: asked the Prime Minister whether he will approach the leaders of the churches for the purpose of fixing a suitable day when the entire people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be called to prayer to Almighty God, humbly beseeching Him to exercise His unlimited power to bring the war to a speedy end by the overthrow of the enemy, and to promote such a spirit of brotherhood and good will among the nations of the earth that they shall seek war no more?

The Prime Minister: As I informed my hon. Friend last week, consideration will be given to his suggestion at an appropriate time. I do not think, however, that that time has yet arrived.

Mr. Barr: Does the Prime Minister not think that this is a matter for the churches themselves rather than for the State exercising its authority in these affairs? In the second place, if there is to be such a date, should it not also be, or rather be, a day of confession of national and international failure rather than a prayer merely for the overthrow of the enemy?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that nothing will be done in this matter without previous consultation with the leaders of the churches.

Mr. Thurtle: May I ask whether, before the Prime Minister takes action on this matter, he will ascertain from the heads of the fighting Services their views as to the efficacy of the proposed action?

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will avoid taking any action which will lead to the complacent and barbaric identification of the Deity with military victory?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PRODUCTION SCHEMES.

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Prime Minister whether he has appointed a special Department to prepare national schemes that must be put into operation within the next 18 months, so that plans may not have to be organised in a hurry and at the last moment, as was the case with certain essential services for which no Department took the initiative of perfecting the appropriate plans to meet the possibility of war?

The Prime Minister: I do not know to what my hon. Friend is referring in the last part of his Question, but I do not think such a Department as he suggests is necessary. It would not be as effective as are the present arrangements, a full and detailed description of which I gave in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) on 1st February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOD PRODUCTION (ALLOTMENTS).

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether special instructions have been issued to local authorities for the encouragement of active interest in the extension of allotments wherever land can be made available; and whether he will call public attention to the success of allotments in the promotion of schemes of food production in the last war;
(2) whether he has taken, or is about to take, measures for co-operative action with the Ministry of Agriculture for the promotion of schemes for the cultivation

of allotments in boroughs and urban districts wherever land can be made available; whether expert instruction will be provided for allotment-holders; whether seeds and manures will be made available on favourable terms; and whether organised effort is being undertaken at the instance of the Government to increase, through allotment- and small-holders, the food supply of the nation?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The Government are anxious to see the utmost possible extension of allotments in war-time, and early in the war I made a public appeal for a further 500,000 allotments. All statutory allotment authorities were circularised by my Department and urged to acquire land to meet the increased demand which I believed would arise. Simultaneously, the Ministry initiated a campaign for supplying the necessary expert guidance, this campaign being based administratively on the establishment of horticultural committees in all the larger urban areas. These efforts, backed up by the work of voluntary organisations, particularly the National Allotments Society and the Society of Friends, have made considerable progress and I feel that the time has arrived when the various aspects of the movement should be fully co-ordinated and organised. I have, therefore, decided, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, to set up a Co-ordinating Council with the following terms of reference:
To advise and assist the Minister of Agriculture on the development in war-time of the production of vegetables and fruit in allotments and private gardens, and of such other forms of food production as may be appropriate to the home; to organise, where necessary, supplies of seed, fertilisers, stock or equipment; and to advise as to such measures as may be practicable for the effective use of produce found to be surplus to the producers' home requirements.''
I propose to invite organisations concerned with this important aspect of increased food production to nominate representatives to sit on this council, and I am glad to be able to announce that my friend the right hon. Lord Bingley has accepted my invitation to act as chairman of the council. Meantime the urgent need is for the turning over of as much allotment land as possible during the next two months, to secure vegetable crops during the coming season.

Sir P. Hannon: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for the very interesting statement he has made to the House, may I ask him whether it is now the definite policy of the Government, by every means possible and through this special organising committee, to encourage allotment work in all our urban and rural areas throughout the country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. T. Williams: To what extent has Birmingham so far responded to this appeal?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. Paling: Has the general demand for allotments up to the present been such as to be deemed satisfactory?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It has been slow but there are reasons for that, and we hope that now it will really go ahead.

Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) helped my right hon. Friend to draft that answer?

POST-WAR LAND SETTLEMENT.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will institute an inquiry into the whole problem of land settlement, including small holdings established by county councils, with a view to the preparation of a comprehensive scheme which can be put into operation immediately after the war for the benefit of men who have served in His Majesty's Forces and others?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I do not consider that such an inquiry as is suggested is necessary at the present time. The question of land settlement is one that will need to be re-examined in connection with any general programme of reconstruction alter the war, and in the light of the agricultural and other conditions then prevailing. Ample information as to existing schemes of land settlement is already available in the form of published reports on the subject.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend reply to the latter part of my question?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That will have to be a matter for consideration later.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: If I put down a Question in a short time will my right hon. and gallant Friend be able to give me some more satisfactory answer?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I could not say that, but I still think it is a matter which should await later consideration.

Mr. T. Williams: In view of our experience in food production since the last war, should we not be rendering better service if we organised large holdings rather than small holdings?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is one of the points, and we have a lot of information on the subject.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remember that you cannot bluff a generation twice?

LAND UTILISATION SURVEY.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the survey made by the Land Utilisation Survey is being made use of in connection with his war-time agricultural campaign; and whether or not the work of the survey is being continued?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir, most of the 6-inch sheets on which the primary results of the Land Utilisation Survey were originally recorded have been lent to the county war agricultural executive committees, and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks for the generous way in which the Director of the Survey put this material at my disposal. As regards the second part of the Question, I am informed that the field work of the survey was completed and recorded on the 6-inch maps before the outbreak of war. The remaining work consists of the publication of these maps, reduced to 1-inch scale, and the writing and publication of reports for the various counties. Some of this work has already been done and I am informed that the remainder is proceeding.

Mr. Roberts: Is not the extension of this work of vital importance and cannot the Minister make fuller use of the services of this body?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am making every possible use of it.

SUGAR-BEET.

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of the 1939 sugar-beet crop are estimated to be still in the fields, either unpulled or in heaps, and whether this acreage is now a total loss as far as sugar yields are concerned?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There are about 3,000 acres where the crop has either not been lifted or removed from the farm. The possibility of keeping one of the factories open to deal with this beet is under examination.

Mr. Morgan: Is it not a fact that this acreage has been left in this condition because of the shortage of labour, which is causing farmers not to contract up for the next season to a considerable extent; and what has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in mind to face this situation?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is another question. I am informed that there were other factors besides labour in some of these cases. Actually it is less than 1 per cent. of the total crop.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: In view of the fact that there are a large number of active aliens in this country who desire work, could not my right hon. and gallant Friend organise a plan where-by they could be used on this vital kind of work?

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated average yield of sugar per acre of sugar-beet for the autumn 1939 crop?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The yield, in terms of white sugar, per acre of sugar-beet harvested in the autumn of 1939 was approximately 1.41 tons per acre.

Mr. Morgan: Has the Minister taken that fact into account with the fact he has just mentioned, and does it not mean that something like 5,000 tons of sugar have been allowed to waste in our fields at a time like this?

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the numerous cases throughout the country of delay in paying the £2 per acre ploughing-up grant, as a result of which and owing to shortage of cash, thousands of acres of land will not be seeded this year;

and what action he proposes to take to remedy this?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am aware that there has been some delay in the payment of these grants, but arrears have now been overtaken and payment is being made within a few days of the receipt of the necessary certificates from the county war agricultural executive committees.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in many cases the grant for ploughing-up done last October has not been paid; and is he also aware that it costs £8 an acre or more to get this land into crops and that no seeding will be done unless these payments are made? It is only two miserable pounds, and they cannot get even that.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We are overtaking the arrears now.

Mr. Ridley: Since grave anxiety has been caused to a large number of small farmers because of this matter, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many days on the average elapse between the completion of ploughing-up and the payment of the grant?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: When we get the reports of the county executive committees payment goes out in a few days.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that they have not yet caught up the arrears?

ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, with a view to assisting the pig and poultry keepers to maintain their stocks, he will confer with the Minister of Food with the object of ensuring an equitable distribution of the wheat offals from the port mills which are constantly being manufactured as a result of the processing of the wheat for flour; and, since the controlled price of these wheat offals is from £2 to £3 per ton below the controlled price of barley meal and maize, whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that some percentage of these supplies is available to the corn merchants and dealers throughout the country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my


right hon. Friend the Minister of Food to my hon. Friend on the same subject yesterday.

Mr. De la Bère: Has not my right hon. and gallant Friend told me that he conferred with the Minister of Food, and did not the Minister of Food tell us that 60 per cent. would be available to farmers; and, as there is nowhere near this quantity available for the corn merchants to supply farmers, would it not have been better if the Minister of Food had never made that announcement? It is absolutely misleading.

FOXES (DAMAGE).

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the serious losses suffered by farmers and poultry keepers owing to the damage caused by foxes, he will encourage farmers and poultry keepers to take active steps to destroy these vermin?

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the widespread feeling amongst poultry keepers over the increasing destruction of poultry by foxes; and will he take steps to remedy the situation caused by the refusal of county war agricultural committees to take any action to preserve an important food industry?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have no evidence that the destruction of poultry by foxes has increased. County war agricultural executive committees have no powers enabling them to proceed with the destruction of foxes; but, as indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) on 15th February, special measures have been taken to bring about a reduction in the number of foxes. I shall continue to watch the position closely and, if the necessity arises, shall be prepared to take appropriate action.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the widespread evidence in the Press and otherwise of the serious depredations of these vermin, which are bred largely for the pursuit of a contemptible sport, will not the Minister take some action now that we are in a war period?

Mr. A. Edwards: May I ask a Supplementary Question?

Mr. Speaker: There has already been one of considerable length.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHING OF FIRST-AID

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of its importance under normal conditions and its particular importance in war-time, he will suggest to local education authorities that elementary first-aid should be taught to all children of an appropriate age?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The Board have already made this suggestion to local education authorities and others concerned in the recently issued "Suggestions on Health Education," of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

LUTON.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the position of Luton arising out of evacuation; whether he is aware that with the number ofevacuees still there the education of Luton schoolchildren has to be limited to 4,830 full-time, 742 half-time, and the remaining 56 per cent. to a little over half-time; and whether, in view of the fresh evacuation scheme, steps will be taken to ease the situation in Luton so that more effective education can be provided?

Mr. Lindsay: I am fully alive to the position in Luton. The difficulty arises only partly from evacuation and is due in the main to an insufficiency of accommodation. This can be remedied only by completing the school buildings which are in hand and securing temporary additional accommodation. I propose to see the local education authority and the regional commissioner myself in order to remedy this position.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the Minister keep in mind the necessity for some reshuffling of the evacuees, in the event of buildings not being available?

Mr. Lindsay: That is a very relevant point.

Mr. Thorne: How long will it be before you decide that there must be compulsion?

Mr. Lindsay: A decision was announced two weeks ago and now we are doing our best to carry it out.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (BOARD OF EDUCATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of officials who have been removed from his Department since the beginning of the war; and to what extent it is proposed to return these to their duties now, in view of the decision to enforce the Education Acts?

Mr. Lindsay: Eighty-one officials have joined the Forces;708, of whom 85 have subsequently returned, have been lent to other Departments, mainly the Admiralty. The large majority of these belong to clerical and subordinate grades. One hundred new appointments have been made. The Board's administrative arrangements have been recast to meet the new situation created by the war and the reductions to which I have referred are attributable in the main to the temporary cessation or curtailment of such activities as reorganisation, approval of school buildings, full inspections, courses for teachers, the National Fitness Council and certain statistical work. The Board's staffing requirements are under weekly review and if it is found that further staff is needed it will be secured.

Mr. Mander: Is it not inevitable, in view of the Government's policy of enforcing the Education Act, that leading officials of the Education Department should go back there, and will the Minister see whether that can be done?

Mr. Lindsay: The main problem is not as simple as that. Education is carried on by 315 local authorities. That is the main problem.

Sir H. Williams: Are the statistical clerks to whom my hon. Friend referred keeping a record of those who are not being educated?

Mr. Maxton: How have the 100 new staff been recruited if there are no Civil Service examinations?

Mr. Lindsay: Some have come in through the Ministry of Labour and some passed the Civil Service examinations which were held before the war started.

MEDICAL TREATMENT (ARMED FORCES' DEPENDANTS).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that, during the war, the National Health In-

surance Fund is being relieved of the liability for providing medical benefit to those engaged in active service, he will consider the desirability of extending the right to medical benefit to their dependants?

Mr. Elliot: The relief to National Health Insurance funds of the liability for providing medical benefit to men serving in His Majesty's Forces is off-set by a corresponding reduction in the rate of contribution payable in respect of such men, and consequently there is no margin which could be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

NATIONAL CAMPS.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health whether his Department have inspected all the camps built by the National Camps Corporation, Limited; and is he satisfied that the accommodation provided for school children and for teachers and resident staff is satisfactory from a health point of view, and that the amenities are reasonably adequate?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. Numerous inspections of these camps have been made by officers of my Department and of the Board of Education. In addition, before a camp is occupied by a school, ample opportunity is afforded to the responsible education authority to carry out its own inspection, and to arrange for minor alterations and adaptations to meet the requirements of the school from the point of view of education, health and amenity. The camps are of a standard design which I have approved, and I am satisfied that the accommodation provided is satisfactory as regards health and amenity for the children, their teachers, and the resident staff.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that the standard of amenity and public health in these camps is very far below that in any other residential school?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, I could not possibly agree to that.

Mr. McEntee: It is.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Health how many camps have been built by the National Camps Corporation, Limited; how many of them are now


occupied by school children and from what local authority's area do these children come; what further local authorities have entered into agreements for their school children to occupy these camps; and is it proposed to continue building similar camps?

Mr. Elliot: Thirty-one camps are being built by the National Camps Corporation, Limited, of which 20 are completed and the remainder in an advanced stage of construction. Two camps are occupied by school children from the areas of the London County Council and the borough of Ilford. Agreements for the occupation of further camps have been entered into by these two authorities, and the Cheshire County Council, the county borough councils of East Ham, West Ham, Kingston-upon-Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Southampton, and Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the borough councils of Leyton and Rochester have either entered into agreements or have them under active consideration. The question of further building and, if so, on what lines, will be reviewed as soon as some experience has been gained of the working of the present scheme.

Mr. McEntee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the authorities who have taken camps are compelled to spend much money on amenities?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. If authorities do not want to take camps there is no compulsion whatever on them to do so.

Mr. Mander: How many children are going to these camps?

Mr. Elliot: I could not say without notice.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether immediate steps are being taken to provide a substantial increase in the provision of further permanent camps for the use of school children evacuated during the war, and what number of such camps are in contemplation?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health how many more camps does he contemplate building for the evacuation of school children; and how does he propose to allocate them?

Mr. Elliot: Under the present scheme, 31 camps are being built in England and Wales, the majority of which will, under

existing conditions, be placed at the disposal of local education authorities for the accommodation of evacuated schoolchildren. The question of further building and, if so, on what lines, will be reviewed as soon as some experience has been gained of the working of the present scheme.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister agree that there is an urgent need of building for community as against home or cottage evacuation?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is speaking of buildings for further education. We must review the possibilities when we have experience of how the scheme works.

Mr. Adams: I think there is a possibility.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why it is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule tonight, and will he also state the Business for next week?

The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night in order to make sure of obtaining the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates which are on the Order Paper. We also hope to obtain the remaining stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Bill and the Committee stage and concluding stages of the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Bill. We do not propose to keep the House late.
.
I intended to-day to announce that it will be necessary for the House to sit on Mondays and Fridays during March in view of the large amount of Business with which we have to deal before Easter, which this year falls early. It will now be necessary, however, to meet on Monday next as well, in order to consider the Committee stage of the Money Resolution for the Old Age Pensions Bill. It was reported to me yesterday that the Opposition had come to the conclusion that the two days set apart for the Second Reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill and the Money Resolution were insufficient and they proposed to keep the House sitting all night on the Money Resolution. No request had reached me earlier through the usual channels that


more time was required. In the circumstances, I thought it undesirable and unnecessary to put hon. Members and the staff of the House to the inconvenience of an all-night sitting. Accordingly, I decided to postpone taking the Committee stage of the Money Resolution last night and to meet on Monday next for the purpose.
The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
Monday—Committee of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Money Resolution.
Tuesday—Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates and consideration of Votes A and 1, and Navy Supplementary Estimate in Committee. Report stage of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Money Resolution.
Wednesday—Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Air Estimates and consideration of Votes A, 1 and 8 and Air Supplementary Estimate in Committee.
Thursday and Friday—Committee stage of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill.
During the week we hope, as opportunity offers, to make progress with other outstanding business, including the Cotton Industry Bill which has come from another place.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: In view of the obvious limitation of discussion on Estimates for the fighting Services, would the Prime Minister consider whether it would be of advantage to meet in private Session in order to discuss one or more of the Estimates for those Services?

The Prime Minister: No request for anything of the kind has reached me.

Sir A. Sinclair: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consider such a request?

The Prime Minister: As at present advised I do not think there would be any useful purpose in doing so.

Sir A. Sinclair: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would be of advantage to arrange for the Ministers in charge of the fighting Services to meet hon. Members in a Committee room upstairs, where we could have a freer discussion on some important matters which arise?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have a word with me on the subject afterwards.

Mr. Silverman: With regard to the Prime Minister's reference to the convenience of the staff and his remarks about continuing the Debate last night, can he say whether the effect of the decision which he has taken will be that on Monday they will have to do extra time at ordinary rates, whereas last night they would have done it with extra pay?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the arrangements which he announced for sitting an additional day would mean that there would be a re-allocation of all the Ministers time for answering Questions? Otherwise it would not be possible for any Questions to be put down for Monday.

The Prime Minister: Now that the House is to sit on Mondays we shall revert to the order of Questions which applies when the House sits on four days a week. The order will be amended by the inclusion of the new Departments and will be circulated to hon. Members to-morrow morning.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Sir Annesley Somerville: With very great reluctance I ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a brief personal statement. Two nights ago I had the privilege of speaking in this House on the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill, and last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) quoted two passages from that speech. The first passage was this:
The means test was initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) when he was Minister of Health."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1940;col. 1273, Vol. 357.]


Later on he said with regard to that:
I have said in this House before that the means test was established in this country by the 43rd of Elizabeth, passed in the year 1601, and I take my share of responsibility for that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; col.1479, Vol. 357.]
The word "initiated" may be incorrect and I willingly withdraw it and express regret to the right hon. Gentleman for seeming to deprive him of the privilege of his partnership with Queen Elizabeth, but I do not express regret for the second quotation and for the remark which he made with regard to it. The circular—I have it here—was issued by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Minister of Health on 3rd January, 1930. I said with regard to it:
The circular lays down the means test most unmistakably for the guidance of local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1940; col. 1273, Vol. 357.]
The passage in the circular on which I relied was this:
In assessing the amount of relief to be afforded the general principle is that income and means from every source available to the household must be taken into account.

Mr. Woodburn: I wish to raise a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to make a personal explanation.

Mr. Garro Jones: Are there not very definite limitations which govern the construction of a personal statement? If the hon. Member takes advantage of a personal statement to embark upon a subject which is very obscure and which has been one of controversy for many years, is he not exceeding his rights in making that statement?

Mr. Speaker: If I thought he was I should have called him to order.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I respectfully submit that the question as to whether or not that circular to which the hon. Member is referring laid down anew any principle of the administration of the means test, or merely recited the law as it stands at present, is the sole subject-matter of the controversy with regard to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will have patience to listen to the hon. Member's statement he will see what there is in it.

Sir A. Somerville: On that quotation the right hon. Gentleman made the remark:

That statement is a shameless untruth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1940; col. 1479, Vol. 357.]
It is not. It is the truth.

Mr. Greenwood: When I first learned of the hon. Member's intention of raising a point of personal explanation I thought that he intended to withdraw the unwarrantable statement that he made in the House on Tuesday. Last night I made a statement which was not challenged in any quarter of the House. It was not challenged by my successor at the Ministry of Health, and the statement clearly remains. I have nothing to withdraw, and I have nothing to apologise for. I still think it is the duty of the hon. Gentleman to withdraw statements which he cannot prove and of which no denunciation has been made by any responsible person sitting on the opposite side of the House. If, however, the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) does not like the term "shameless untruth, "then I am quite willing to substitute the classical term invented by the First Lord of the Admiralty and call it "a terminological inexactitude."

Mr. Batey: Let us debate who was responsible for this.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939.

CLASS II.

INDIA AND BURMA SERVICES.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma, and grants in aid of military expenditure from Indian Revenues.

4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): Of the amount required in this Supplementary Estimate £1,500 is in respect of additional telegrams sent to India and Burma. The expenditure on telegrams varies considerably from year to year, and in the present instance the increased charges are largely attributable to various precautionary measures which had to be taken prior to the outbreak of war. In addition to the £1,500 for telegram charges, a sum of £350 is required to meet an increase of charges on air mail. There is also an increase of £150 in the Estimate for travelling expenses in respect of passages for military officers from India and Burma attached to the India Office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma, and grants in aid of military expenditure from Indian Revenues.

CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £560,010, be granted to His Majesty to defray

the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance, employment exchange and other services; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army Council and Air Council, of soldiers and airmen; contribution towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; expenses in connection with national service; expenses in connection with persons liable to be registered and called up for military training and for service in the armed forces of the Crown; and sundry services.

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): This Supplementary Estimate has two main purposes. There is a token Estimate of £10 now presented in order to bring to the attention of Parliament the fact that the provision made in the previous Supplementary Estimates for expenses incurred under the Military Training Act, 1939, is also being used for expenses incurred under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. In the second place, the Estimate is needed to provide the additional net sum of £560,000 required for other services of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
With regard to the first of these purposes, it will be within the recollection of the Committee that at the commencement of the present emergency the provisions of the Military Training Act, 1939, were superseded by those of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act,1939. The machinery of the former Act for registration, medical examination, appeal tribunals, hardship committees and calling up were set in motion prior to the outbreak of war and continued under the new Act. In the circumstances prevailing, it was not possible to distinguish the expenditure which was incurred under the respective Acts, and the sum of £250,000 voted by a previous Supplementary Estimate for the purposes of the Military Training Act is accordingly being used for the expenses of the superseding Act. The full estimate of expenditure by the Ministry under the new Act during the current financial year is £430,000; the excess over and above the sum of £250,010 will be met by issues from the Vote of Credit.
The main items which comprise the additional £560,000 are the sum of £235,000 required for the additional staff of the local offices of the Ministry, mainly for work in connection with the National Services (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, and I may point out that the amount would have been larger but for the reduction in the work of the local offices due to an improvement in employment. Secondly, a further sum of £200,000 is required for the Exchequer contribution to the Unemployment Fund, which is also due to an improvement in employment. An additional £525,000 is required mainly owing to the decrease in the sum estimated to be recovered from the Unemployment Fund by way of appropriations-in-aid. That appropriation, of course, is in respect of the administration of unemployment insurance and the payment of allowances, and this decrease also is due to the improvement in employment. The fact is that a large proportion of the work of the local offices of the Ministry is now concerned with duties, such as military recruiting and military service, which are not connected with unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance. There are two small items with which I need not detain the Committee, amounting to £40,000, making the total additional sum which we require £1,000,000. Towards this sum savings amounting to £440,000 are available on certain other items, details of which are given on page 19 of the printed Estimates, and that makes altogether a net total sum of £560,010.
Hon. Members sometimes on Supplementary Estimates want to raise large points and sometimes small points, and I think the Minister in charge does the Committee no service by embarking on a long general explanation at the beginning of the Debate, but I shall be glad to deal at the close of the discussion with any points that Members may want to raise on this very important subject. I think that any doubt that hon. Members might have had as to the competency of a civil Ministry to take over and administer with skill and efficiency these very large and difficult, complex problems will probably have been dissipated by the experience of the last nine months. There will always be, in every large operation, a certain number of complaints, but I think the Committee as a whole will agree that this

vast new responsibility which this Supplementary Estimate betokens has been discharged by a civil Ministry with efficiency and with remarkable skill. That is due, of course, also very largely to the full and thorough co-operation which we have had during the whole period from the various Service Departments, in the work of registration, examination and calling up. I thought it was due to all concerned that the country should understand that this work has been done quickly, without much public notice, and that the problems involved are difficult and full of complications. I am sure the experience over the whole period, both before a man joins up and after, has been justified by the results up to date.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I rise to call attention in particular to one item, namely, that which refers to the expenses incurred in connection with the Military Training Act and the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, and I do so in order to discuss two points—the problem of the hardship tribunals and the problem of the conscientious objectors tribunals. With regard to the first, I would remind the Committee that the men who are brought before these tribunals are not in any sense pleading conscientious objection to entering the Services. They come before the hardship tribunals because they claim that there is something particular about their individual case which makes it desirable that they should either not be brought into the Forces at all or that the time of calling up should be postponed in order to enable them to fulfil some particular engagement which, in their opinion, is of vital importance in their own or their family affairs. I am certainly not complaining on a general scale of the decisions taken by the hardship tribunals. All that I would say is that I think that in a certain number of cases their true function is not exercised with sufficient consideration for the individual who comes before them.
Let us realise what the position is to-day. We have carried through this House the provisions of the Military Service (Armed Forces) Act. If there was an absolute and acute shortage of men at this moment, if every other consideration had to be pushed aside, I can quite understand this House, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this aspect of the


question, and the tribunals saying, "No individual hardship can possibly weigh with us when every individual man is needed to join the Forces at this particular moment." But that is not the position. I am far from saying that there is not a demand for them, but at the same time it was recognised by this House and by the Minister himself that there would be cases in which certain individual hardships might render it desirable, either that a man should be exempted altogether, or, probably in a much larger number of cases, that the time of his calling-up should be postponed. Here is a case that I would like to mention which has been put into my hands. A boy's father is a chronic invalid with diabetes; there is a younger sister who is an invalid and unable to work, and the mother is forced to go out working during the day to keep the house going. The family doctor confirms all these facts, and yet this is a case in which the hardship committee has refused any redress.
There is another case, of a man who has just finished a London County Council scholarship and come under conscription. The mother has made great sacrifices and is robbed of his prospective earnings. There is another case that I may mention. A man is on the point of taking a special examination for which he has been preparing for a very long time, and he asks that in order that he might take the final examination on which the whole future of his life depends, his calling-up should be postponed until after the conclusion of that examination, so that he could get a position in life when the war is over. That man is again refused by one of these tribunals. Here is another case. There is a family with an aged and crippled father. He has a watch and clock maker's business, which is carried on by the son. If the son is called up, the business must close down, as there is no one else to run it, and the parents' livelihood is gone.
These are sample cases, from many that have come in to hon. Members in all parts of the House, I am sure. All I ask is that it shall be brought to the notice of tribunals that, where total exemption is unnecessary, postponement is a remedy that shall be applied in cases where real hardship is shown. I repeat that I am not suggesting that hardship tribunals have, in every case, failed, or that they have not done what the House wishes

them to do; but I am saying that certain tribunals, in certain cases, are missing the mark. That may arise from the limitations that are put on their proceedings. I cannot go into these limitations, because, I understand, they are statutory; but if those limitations are to remain, I think the hardship tribunals ought to use a little more imagination, and see whether, in some of these extreme cases, the request of the applicant should not be granted. I have no doubt that other Members on both sides will bring individual cases to the notice of the Minister and suggest what should be done.
I want to turn to the other branch of this question, relating to individuals with an entirely different outlook. I should like to preface what I have to say with one or two general observations. This country and this House stand, in my opinion, in a very different position from that of the other belligerents; a different position from that which is customary in countries where military conscription is imposed, other than our own land. In other countries, a rigid attitude is adopted, and no exemptions are allowed. I think it is greatly to the credit of this country, and of this House, that we have recognised the individual right to stand out from what is otherwise a universal law. I am quite aware that some Members of this House, and certain people outside, think that what we are doing is soft, and that we are degenerate because we are taking this libertarian view. I do not hold that opinion, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman holds it, and it is certainly not the opinion of the House as a whole. It is because, on a matter like this, we take an entirely different view from that which is taken, in particular, in Nazi Germany, that we have democracy of which we are proud, and they have a system which we abhor.
This House decided that to be a conscientious objector is not to commit a crime; it decided that to be a conscientious objector is not to be contemptible. I am not going to deny that if a man professes conscientious objection for the purpose of evading what, in his heart of hearts, he knows he ought to do, he is taking a most reprehensible line of action, and one which all of us would condemn. I think there are probably very few people who put themselves on


the register of conscientious objectors who really stand exactly there. There may be a number of men who, to use a common phrase, "kid themselves" with the idea that they are conscientious objectors when, in fact, they are nothing of the kind; but I think very few men put forward this objection from conscience when, in fact, they are shirking a duty which they know they ought to perform.
The question is, how should this matter be decided? I think there is no means of deciding it other than by asking a number of men to meet these applicants, and to try to sift out what is in their minds. I think that, speaking generally and broadly, we must be grateful to these people who are prepared to serve on these tribunals and perform an exceedingly difficult and exceedingly unpleasant task. I have not got up to attack the tribunals as a whole, or to condemn either their procedure, their conduct or their judgments. I have risen in order to point the attention of the Committee and of the Minister to the fact that the proceedings in some of these tribunals are undignified, unseemly, and not really in accord with the wishes of the House of Commons. It is not very easy either to prove or to refute that charge, because it is a matter of atmosphere. Even if I had been all round the tribunals myself, and was giving a first-hand view to the Committee, I doubt whether, even if I had the eloquence of some Members of this House, I could convey the atmosphere of the tribunals. But I do not pretend to have been, myself, individually, before the tribunals, and I can only try to convey the atmosphere which has been described to me. What I am told about particular tribunals that I shall mention is that, instead of the judicial atmosphere which ought to prevail in a tribunal, there is a carping, bullying, brutal attitude taken up in them, which is not the one which commends itself to people who wish to see judicial decisions reached.
The tribunals that are set up to-day, in this war, differ somewhat from those set up in the last war. I do not know whether the practice was universal, but where I came across tribunals in the last war, the procedure took this shape. There was a representative of the Army, who was trying to get the individual taken into the Army, and who was almost, as it

were, the prosecuting counsel; and the applicant was liable to the fire of his cross-examination and criticism. The members of the tribunal were, more or less, in the position of judges, waiting to deliver their verdict. I do not know how far they carried it out, but that was, I believe, the conception. In this war, the conception is somewhat different. The applicant has to face the members of the tribunal, and they themselves have to do the cross-examining. I think that that puts them somewhat in a difficulty, because they are both cross-examining the applicant and arriving at their verdict in the end; and, although some may succeed in maintaining judicial impartiality while doing so, the information which reaches me is that some do not. I will give just two illustrations.
Three names were called out at the Newcastle tribunal. The names of Donald, Cameron, and Douglas were called out, and at once the chairman, Judge Richardson, remarked, "Good fighting names. I think the holders of some of these names would turn in their coffins if they could hear what some of these people are saying." That is a very improper remark for the chairman of a tribunal to make. The House of Commons has decided that it is not a crime, that it is not even contemptible, to be a conscientious objector if the person is genuine. Yet these insulting remarks are poured out by the chairman as soon as the names of these applicants are announced. In the West London court, Sir Edmund Phipps called out, in the midst of the proceedings, "These miserable creatures"; and later, when they were speaking, he said, "What tosh." Surely those are not judicial remarks. I can quite understand that these people, whose views are peculiar, seem very odd, and naturally provoke a great deal of resentment in the minds of people whose attitude is more in accord with the majority opinion in this country; but people sitting in a judicial capacity ought to restrain themselves from giving vent to these unjudicial remarks. I am sure the opinion of the Committee will be on those lines.
One of these gentlemen, the person to whom I referred last, is an elderly man, and suffers from deafness. Many of us are acquainted with deaf people, and we know that not only cannot they always


hear what is said to them, but they are inclined to shout themselves, because, to them, their voices lose their intensity. One of the applicants who was brought into the court was a strange little man, with a very thin voice, and he could not raise his voice above a certain pitch. This gentleman shouted at him, told him to speak up, and when he could not, told him that he was insulting the court.

Mr. McGovern: Who was this?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have mentioned the name, Sir Edmund Phipps. It would not be in keeping with what is a judicial function for anyone in that position to treat persons brought before the court, even if they were criminals charged with a vile crime, in that way. I will go further than that. These individuals who come before these courts are young men who, rightly or wrongly, think they have formed a view on moral questions which differs from that of their fellows. In the vast majority of cases they are sincere, at any rate to the extent that they believe they hold these views very firmly and tenaciously. I do not think you are going to arrive at the truth as to their real moral and mental condition by shouting at them, by rushing a number of questions at them in a hurry, and by driving them into making fooling remarks which may or may not be their considered opinions.
I do not know whether it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, but it is certainly the view of those who have held office on this side, that it is not any light task when from all sections of the House a number of people hurl questions at a Minister and he has to answer in a hurry. But, after all, we who have to face these interrogations have had a good deal of experience. We have had the experience of the election hustings, and we have sat in this House and have faced up to a barricade of remarks, and we have seen how it is done, and how it ought not to be done, and we have learnt a good deal in the course of our experience. I do not mind saying that, although I first came into this House in the year 1923—and I have been here nearly ever since—it is only in the last year or two that I have risen to my feet without having a certain sense of nervousness in addressing this Assembly. Here you have young men who have this sort of secret in their

hearts. They think in some way that they have got something a little different from other people. They have never really been brought face to face with hard-headed men who are to cross-question them, and instead of their questioners trying to arrive at what is really in their minds by a little quiet talk, they are rushed at, and, in many cases, deliberately confused. That is not the way to arrive at the truth, and that is the main point of what I am trying to say this afternoon.
I have brought down with me several cases where people have been refused when apparently their case was made out, but, of course, it is not very easy for us to judge, even if we have a complete verbatim report. It is for those who are actually there and hear the words being spoken to judge whether a man is sincere, or whether it is a put-up job. There is a case, for instance, which took place in the Newcastle Court, to which I have already referred. I do not know, but possibly the Committee may be tempted to smile at the name of the society which the applicant claimed to represent. He said that he belonged to "Jehovah's Witnesses," and apparently he had given up his work and had spent a month going round delivering tracts. The whole attitude of the tribunal was to try and deride what he was doing and to hold him up to ridicule.

Viscountess Astor: How long had he been a member? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: He had been a member for years, but he had been doing this work, I understand, for the last few months. I am not stressing that fact unnecessarily, but my point is that this man was, rightly or wrongly, quite clearly from the evidence, sincere. I do not put it higher than that, and the tribunal devoted itself to ridicule what this man believed to be his definite lot, and, not only that, they refused him exemption. The man who writes to me on behalf of this organisation says that in the other courts of the country the views of those who are definite members of the organisation have been accepted and their objection upheld, but in this particular court all the cases that have been brought forward have been turned down. I do not want to labour the matter, but I should like a reply on the point.

Colonel Burton: What sort of a job did the court allot to that man?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not know. At any rate, the application was turned down, and I will say a word about that before I sit down. The first point I want to bring before the right hon. Gentleman is whether, in some of these cases, he has any power to review the personnel of these tribunals, because it is clear from the evidence which reaches me—and I believe it will be the same sort of evidence that comes from other parts of the Committee—that a great many of these tribunals are doing their work conscientiously, reasonably and fairly, and are not imposing upon those who come before them any questions but those which they are perfectly entitled to ask, but there are tribunals, and there are individuals in those tribunals, who regard it as their right, and, I suppose, their duty, to try and browbeat and bully the applicant. If it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to do anything with regard to these tribunals, either openly or by pressure, to stop that kind of thing, I think he will be acting not merely as it is his duty to act, but in the general interests of the good feeling in this country, and he will be promoting the real strength of the armed Forces.
I will say one word further with regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) as to the final decision. I have read through a number of cases, and I find that at the end, it is a very common thing for the tribunal to give a man exemption from the direct armed Forces. They say that he has an objection to killing, but he must go into the non-combatant forces. I think it is quite likely that in a great many cases it is a thoroughly sound decision, and, in fact, a great many men have asked that that should be done. It may be perfectly right in a great number of instances to make that decision, but it is clear from the evidence that there are certain men who have a conscientious objection even to that, and for the reason that by becoming part of the Army, though outside the armed section of it, they consider that they are setting another man free to do the work which they will not do themselves. Whether it appears reasonable to other people or

not, they have just as strong a conscientious objection to that as they have to anything else. I do not think that it is much good for the tribunal to impose upon these applicants a course of life, to which they believe, at any rate, they are conscientiously opposed. I do not think that we get much further in that way. They only resist. They come before the appeal tribunal, and the appeal tribunal no doubt in many cases uphold the decision of the first court, and these men face up to the trouble and they are sentenced to imprisonment.
Personally, I think that conscientious objectors, good, bad and indifferent, are probably better out of the Army altogether, from the Army point of view, and if I were a commanding officer in the Army, I would not want to have a man who was a conscientious objector, whether he had a conscientious objection to fighting from the Biblical or Christian point of view, or whether he had a strong political objection to taking part in war, or whether he was an arrant coward trying to shirk his duty, because I believe that all three of them would be subversive to discipline in my ranks. If a point had to be stretched, I would much rather stretch it against sending a man to non-combatant duty than I would stretch it in favour of sending him.
That is the final point I wish to make. I think that conscientious objection, while it is a peculiar sort of thing—and you cannot say that it ought to be this or the other—is just what a man thinks it is. It would be in the better interests of the Army and the country as a whole if these tribunals gave up thinking of these men as criminals or as despicable people and reconciled themselves to dealing with the straightforward facts of the case. They would do better by talking reasonably with a youngman than by trying to knock him off his perch by confusing him and bullying him; and, finally, I think they would come to a better decision if they erred on the side of keeping him out of the Forces altogether, whether non-combatant or combatant, and as far as possible gave him the exemption which his conscience desired them to give and left it to his conscience to decide whether he had been an upholder of his true faith or whether he had been a shirker, knowing his duty to be otherwise.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: The question which I wish to raise has reference to Item G, a supplementary sum of £200,000 in connection with the contributions payable by the State to the Unemployment Fund. This is a result, the Minister explained, of an improvement in employment, meaning that more employers and more employed were paying contributions, which made it necessary for the Exchequer to be drawn upon to the extent of a Supplementary Estimate of £200,000. The Minister will agree that it is not a matter of regret but rather one for congratulation that the conditions with regard to unemployment have so improved that it has become necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce another £200,000 as a State contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I want to take the mind of the Minister back to 6th September of last year, when, under Emergency Regulation 1148, he reduced the number of the benefits from 312 days to 180, thus reverting to the old position. I think that he acted rather hastily on that occasion, but no doubt he did it as a matter of precaution.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot raise that matter on this Supplementary Estimate. It is a very small increase in a very large Vote, and therefore, under the procedure of the House, it does not justify discussion of the general administration on a particular service.

Mr. Naylor: Am I not entitled, in consequence of that item of £200,000, which means a distinct gain for the Unemployment Insurance Fund, to make are quest to the Minister to reconsider a regulation which would give him the opportunity of reverting to the original number of days' benefit—312 days as against 180? After all, it is a matter of expenditure.

The Chairman: The hon. Member would not be in order in raising the matter on this Supplementary Estimate. It must come on the main Estimate.

Mr. Naylor: That is a great disappointment, but I accept your Ruling.

4.45 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I have great sympathy with the tribunals and I quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said that they do vary. But, I think,

on the whole they do extraordinarily good work. I know a woman, an American, who was married to a German, and who had been watching our tribunals before going back to America. She said to me, "I had lost complete faith in human nature until I came to England and watched the work of your tribunals. Since then I have regained my faith in mankind." I think that is an extraordinary tribute from a foreigner who is married to a German. I do feel, however, that if there are some tribunals which have turned down everybody something is wrong with them and that we cannot be careful enough in selecting them. It is a great pity that responsible women have not been appointed. I do not ask for the appointment of women who do not know the job, who are not educated, or who have not trained minds, but we have some magnificent women in this country and I think the tribunals would be much better if they could have the advantage of women's services. I would appeal to the Minister to look into this matter and to see whether he is making all the use he can of some of these women.
To come to conscientious objectors, I had a very great deal to do with them in the last war. We employed them at our place. Some were political objectors, waiting to choose their own war, and others were Christian objectors. I saw many at Prince town, and when I asked those looking after them to tell me how many they thought were really spiritually-minded Christian conscientious objectors, they said "About 1,000 out of 10,000."

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps a personal reference is out of place, but during the last war I was a conscientious objector. Does that prevent me from being a spiritual Christian?

Viscountess Astor: You were probably a political conscientious objector—

Mr. Deputy: The Noble Lady must remember to address the Chair.

Viscountess Astor: I shall certainly address you, Sir. Most of the spiritually-minded conscientious objectors in the last war went willingly into non-combatant service, and although I have the greatest consideration for such persons I do not think politically-conscientious objectors, who are waiting to choose their own war, ought to get off scot free while the men of


this country go out to fight for something which these persons who are left behind will afterwards try to upset. I do not mind people getting off if they are Christian objectors, if their conscience will not allow them to fight, but at least they might be made to do some national work. I think most Members feel that way. I am truly sorry for a man whose conscience is so sensitive that he cannot kill, but I think the country would be annoyed if it felt we were letting off people to do whatever they liked. There are in this country thousands of men who are conscientious objectors in this war. I have never met a single soldier, sailor or airman who wanted to go to war and I spend most of my time among them. That is the most remarkable thing about this war. The whole nation has a conscientious objection to it; they hate it. I have seen men who have returned on the "Ajax" and "Exeter'' and the one thing which has impressed me most is that they are not the slightest bit bellicose or bitter. Is it fair that we should ask them to go on while we let off people who do not care about their country? The young women of this country will not agree to that.
Be kind to the conscientious objector, but not the political objector. The people who do not care for their own country are, like the people who do not care for their own families, no good. If there ever was a war where everybody ought to be made to do his best, it is this war, and I hope the tribunals will be picked with great care, and that we shall get the best of people on them. Be tender with the really spiritually-minded, but not with those like the hon. Gentleman who said he was not spiritually-minded. It is nothing to boast about. In this war we are not only fighting for ourselves, but for civilisation and the things that matter, and you cannot afford to let young men say of others, "They are choosing their own time and have no Christian principles." I say that those people should be made to do jobs, and "darned" disagreeable jobs, too. [Interruption.] Come down to Plymouth and see the sailors and airmen. Last week a sailor told me he had been 76 days on a destroyer and had had only three days off. Has the country so little imagination? If they really realised what our people were already doing the Government would not need to be so careful not to do this

or that. If you would only let the country know what the Navy and Air Force are doing already people would be willing to give up more than they do. I feel for the Christian, but I have no sympathy with those who want to shirk this war and to choose their own fighting.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I will not follow the Noble Lady in the statement of prejudices which she has expressed to the Committee this afternoon. The Military Service Act, as I understand it, was passed by this House, and in it there were given certain guarantees of fair consideration for the conscientious objectors' point of view. It laid down that after having heard the evidence, the tribunal, if they desired to raise any evidence in opposition to the claim, were entitled to weigh the evidence of the individual and his witnesses and come to a fair conclusion as to the point of view of the conscientious objector, and to make their decision accordingly. I think it has been accepted in the House that a number of people on these tribunals are performing what I would admit is a very difficult work in a fair manner, but there are others who are allowing their own personal, political and class prejudices to operate to an extent which should not be permitted by the Government of this country, and in a manner which is resented by every decent and fair-minded person. When a boy of 21 to 22 comes before a tribunal you must remember that he has no experience of addressing members of the tribunals. He has no public-speaking experience behind him, with the result that nervousness operates to a considerable degree. Too often a man cannot make a fair defence of his own point of view before a tribunal. A man can often feel better than he can express, and I claim that tribunals are entitled to take into consideration that attitude and not hurry, or to pass observations of a contemptuous kind on the person before them, and make him feel that he is propagating views which are alien either to the tribunal or to the nation.
We must remember that, whether it is right or wrong, everyone brought up in churches or Sunday schools has been taught, "Thou shalt not kill. "It does not say in any teachings or readings I have had, "Thou shalt not kill except when the Government orders you to


do so." Therefore, if I accept religious principles and teachings at their face value I am entitled to place my own interpretation on what my religious belief is towards war and my fellow men, and whether I can square my conscience with taking part in a military machine organised to destroy other individuals. With that I, personally, have had no quarrel. But there are individuals who, in many ways, are not getting the fair treatment they are entitled to expect. Such a man is Mr. Ernest Myers, of Halifax. He was treated in a most contemptuous manner by the chairman of the tribunal, and I say that the chairman should be removed immediately from that tribunal as one who is incompetent to deal out fairness to the individual and who allowed his personal antagonisms to overcome his fairness.
I have been asked, "What would you do if somebody attacked you?" I said frankly to the chairman of a Glasgow tribunal "I do not know what I would do in certain circumstances. If a man attacked me it would depend to a large extent on the weapons he possessed." Many a wise man would attempt to escape from a man with a revolver. A stupid man might face up to him and be killed. If a man says, "Yes, I would defend myself," then it is plain he is not a conscientious objector. I put this case to the chairman of the tribunal in Glasgow. Suppose that I am an unemployed man, unable, through financial difficulties, to pay my rent, and an order is given in the Courts by the Sheriff to evict me from my home. If the Sheriff's officer comes to put me, my wife and children and my furniture into the back court, am I entitled to defend myself then? If they are anxious for a man to defend his wife and his own life, am I entitled to shoot the Sheriff's officer? Am I entitled to throw him over the stair-head, because the defence of the individual's home would come right on to his very doorstep and would be more dangerous to him than the foreign invader generally pictured to us by these members of the tribunal. They have no right to condemn a man because he says in an intelligent way, "Yes, I probably would defend myself," and in these circumstances it is held that he is not a conscientious objector at all.
On the other hand, let us take the Christian objector who says he would

not take part in any work of military service and would not take part in the machine. He refuses to serve. Quotations from the Bible are thrown at him. Many a man who has an inherent Christian and moral attitude to life has never made a deep study of the Bible. He cannot throw quotations back to the chairman of the tribunal, and they are not entitled to throw them at him to prove that war is being defended by religious bodies. In Glasgow we had a young Jewish lad pleading as a conscientious objector. They sent for a Rabbi to come and give what he believed to be the official Jewish attitude towards war, and the man was turned down, not on his own conscience but because of the Rabbi's interpretation.
There was a case which I brought up and which the Minister defended vigorously. I am not complaining of his defending these chairmen vigorously even when they are doing wrong, because it is done by nearly all Ministers. A Roman Catholic claimed exemption and the chairman said, "Have you consulted your local priest as to whether you should object to military service or not?" The man said: "No, I am appealing here on my belief and interpretation of my religious views. It is not the priest's conscience but mine that is being considered." He was turned down because he did not bring the priest to the tribunal. I was born and brought up and am a Roman Catholic, but I would no more accept the interpretation of an individual clergyman, or even of the head of the Church, than I would accept the definition of the Prime Minister. I have an attitude in life towards war. In fact my impulse towards politics was all born of my earlier religious teaching and belief. My own interpretation and my Christian attitude were to try to improve life, and to leave it better than I found it. But even as a Christian I refuse to foot the bill for the incompetency of Governments throughout the world who have failed to arrive at a just state of society which will prevent war, and then come and ask individuals to go out and fight in that war. This idea of bringing clergymen to the tribunals in order to destroy the claim of the individual is wrong and indefensible and ought not to be allowed, because the conscience of the individual is the thing that matters.
In relation to the political objector, I know that there are a great number of difficulties. Let us take the case made by the right hon. Gentleman. He makes a poor apology for the conscientious objector in presenting the case. Let me give examples of people who are prepared to back war and to oppose war. Take two outstanding cases. The Lord Provost of Glasgow, who is Lord Lieutenant of the County now, is one of the greatest advocates of war against Hitler. That is his attitude to the present war. When he was of military age in the last war he was a conscientious objector. Did he object to taking human life on religious or moral grounds? Was he a political objector or was he simply a coward evading his duty? I am not alleging that he was. I am asking the question. Take the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). He was a conscientious objector in the last war, and, instead of fighting, he accepted a job in an orchard near London. He wants to prosecute this war. I think one of the great dangers in this war is that when the Government get decent peace terms many Members of the Labour party will not allow them to be accepted. They would rather that the war should go on until Hitler and every one associated with him is wiped out, and millions of workers at the same time. I do not object to Hitler being destroyed, but I object to getting through 2,000,000 of the German youth in order to get at him.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting a little beyond the scope of the Debate.

Mr. McGovern: Here are two men who were both of military age in 1914, but they refused to serve. They were conscientious objectors. I do not criticise them for that. My criticism is that they are not vigorous in the House in defending other people who hold similar views to what they held in the last war. I am prepared to be as fair as possible, but I would still say to these individuals that they should hold their tongue about what the youth of the nation should do in this war, seeing they did not do it when they were of military age. Were they political objectors, were they Christian objectors or were they simply cowards attempting to save their own skins? I was a conscientious objector in the last war. I 
have a son who will be a conscientious objector in this war, because he has been brought up in an environment of hatred of war, because of the belief that we have that war springs from an economic order. I held these views when I was of military age and I still hold them, because I see no reason to change them, when I am over military age. I am a political objector to this extent. The most hateful thing to me in life is the taking of human life. I ask the Committee to accept that. My attitude has even changed within recent years to a considerable extent. I believe in a measure of force to achieve aims and ends that I believe in, but I have seen so much of force and violence and bloodshed and brutality in the world, in Germany, in Russia, in Spain and in other fields, that I begin to doubt whether force ever achieves anything at all. I am being driven logically to that end. I therefore went to the tribunal in the last war and claimed exemption as a conscientious objector, and they treated me perfectly fairly.
On the local tribunal in Glasgow in the last war we had members of the Labour party who were backing the war, but they treated us with the utmost fairness and did not indulge in so much of this denunciation. I walked into the tribunal with my hand in my pocket and the military representative told me to take it out. I reminded him that my hand was in my own pocket. The chairman reprimanded the military representative and said his observation was uncalled for and should not have been made. They told me that I was not a conscientious objector within the meaning of the Act because I said I did not object in certain circumstances to taking human life. I am not trying to lay down a line either for the Minister or for the House, but I should like to see a complete definition. Let me give a case which I read in Mosley's paper, "Action." This individual claimed exemption because he said he was in agreement with the Nazi system in Germany and he objected to being asked to take up arms to overthrow a system that he agreed with. He was exempted from military service as a political objector. I heard no cries in the House about that political objector being exempted. I am prepared to admit that there is a definite difficulty in connection with these political objectors. A man says, "I am pre-


pared to take human life in certain circumstances, but it must be a war that I agree with. "For example, one man says he thinks the Government are responsible for the creation of Hitler, and that they had many opportunities of saving the country from a horrible situation, and he cannot be expected to foot the bill after our Ministers have been completely incompetent and inhuman in their treatment of the German people. In the end he is exempted.
The political objector may have gone to fight in the Spanish war but when he comes back here says that he will not fight in this war because he does not agree with it. It reminds me of a story of the Russian Revolution of 1917. A man was asked "Are you going down to the public execution?" He said, "No, I have a private matter of my own on to-night." That may seem the position of a number of people in connection with the present war, and of many other people who could not claim to be conscientious objectors. Many of them tramped the streets of our cities demanding that the Prime Minister be removed because he was not aggressive enough towards Hitler, but afterwards, when he became aggressive and responded to the demand and went to war, they said "It is a bloody, Imperialist war." I am not defending that. I think these individuals should be compelled to face their responsibilities. I myself cannot compromise with any individual in my relationship towards war. It is a genuine, honest point of view. There is, however, a difference between the man who holds that point of view and a man who attempts acts of sabotage against his country in its war effort. I would not do that, and I could not do that. If the nation has decided that war has to be conducted I am entitled to state my views, but I am not entitled to abuse that point of view and attempt to bring greater difficulties in the way of those who are responsible for the country.
A question has been raised about the manufactured conscientious objector. I am not prepared to encourage people to plead conscientious objection because they refuse to play their part in the war and suddenly decide that they have a conscientious objection. A woman came to me with a grievance about her son who had gone into the Army. She said, "John, I think I have a good mind to

turn a conscientious objector." I can have nothing to do with cases of that kind. I am prepared to defend those who really feel that they have honest convictions. All I am asking, not in a nasty manner, is that people who have genuine views should not be made to look ridiculous in the eyes of their fellow men, but should be given a fair and square deal, and that the political antagonisms of members of the tribunal should be held in restraint. That is what I am sure every honest and reasonably-minded man demands. While I have no sympathy with the manufactured objector I have every sympathy and support for those who have genuine objections and shall defend them to the uttermost of my power and see that they get justice.

5.20 p.m.

Colonel Burton: I have the greatest admiration for the man who is brave enough to be a conscientious objector at the present time. I admit that I cannot understand his point of view. I am not a conscientious objector myself; indeed, the only regret I have is that so far I have not been able to get back into the Forces. It seems to me that the language of this Debate demands that we should have the presence of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert). The right hon. Gentleman who spoke early in the Debate talked about people "kidding themselves," and then went on to say that one of the judges in the tribunal described the evidence as "tosh." The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) hoped that these men would get "darned difficult jobs," and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has referred to a "bloody Imperialistic war."

Mr. McGovern: I did not use it as coming from myself, but I was alleging that the Communists have alleged that the war in Spain was a just war, but that now it is said that this is a "bloody Imperialist war."

Colonel Burton: I certainly accept the explanation, and knowing the hon. Member as I do, and his scruples in regard to these matters, I felt that it must be a quotation rather than an original remark. It reminds me of a picture which appeared in "Punch" during the last war. A young subaltern came home and saw his


aunt. She asked him what sort of a time he was having, and he said, "I am having a really posh time." His aunt said, "Posh; what does that mean?" He said, "Posh is slang for swish." It seems to me to be getting a little bit away from the Vote of the Ministry of Labour. I feel a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Member for Shettleston when he says that if he was confronted with a burglar with a pistol he might run away. It reminds me of the Irishman who said that he would rather be a coward for five minutes than a dead man for the rest of his life. It seems to me that this Debate on the conscientious objector is an excrescence on the Vote of the Ministry of Labour, and I would like to bring it back to matters which really do enter into the business of the Ministry.
I want one or two questions answered especially in regard to the courses of instruction for unemployed juveniles. Will the Minister tell us something in regard to the training of young people? There are many who have gone in for this training. We have heard of the land army and that 12,000 girls have been trained. Very few are being employed; and we know that it is almost impossible to get labour on the land in order to get the crops in. Only this afternoon we heard that 5,000 tons of sugar-beet could not be gathered because there is no labour. It seems to me that some of these people might be employed in that way. I should like to know how the Minister is getting on with applications for exemption for agricultural workers. I know many instances where applications have been made for exemption or to get men back from the Army on to the land. Some of them have been replied to by postcard, some by circulars, but very few by a return of the men. This is a matter which should be settled now at the beginning of the season. We shall want every man and woman available on the land, and I think we should get some definite undertaking that these things will be put right. That, I think, is rather more germane to the Vote of the Minister of Labour than academic questions as to whether a man is spiritually-minded or not. Whether a man is spiritually-minded or not, whether he is a conscientious objector or not, he has to eat, and we shall not be able to get the produce of the land unless we get more labour. I

would urge the speeding up of the training and also the speeding up of the return of men to the land.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Viant: It is rather unfortunate that this Vote involves such a number of different subjects. The question of the conscientious objector is one of importance to this House and to the Minister of Labour, because his Department is responsible for the machinery which has been set up to deal with these citizens. However much we may disagree with them this House has the responsibility for seeing that its desires are carried out through the machinery. There is no reason whatever for apologising for again asking the House to revert to a consideration of this subject. I have watched the proceedings of a number of these tribunals, and I think I can bear testimony to this extent, that in the main they have undoubtedly carried out the purpose for which they were set up. Like my right hon. Friend I have been rather concerned about the remarks which have been made by some members of the adjudicating body. I think it is unfair to the young men who come before them that these things should be said to men who may owe allegiance to some religious body which is not well-established or thoroughly understood. I do not think that the organisation or the applicant should be made to look ridiculous.
The Minister may not be able to adjust matters but the fact that this question is being raised in the House will serve a useful purpose. The persons who are adjudicating in the tribunals are bound to have their attention drawn to what is occurring in the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman could in any way pass the word along to some of these tribunals which have been reported as making unfair criticisms about the applicant and unfair criticisms about certain organisations, it would serve a useful purpose. I think that, in the main, the tribunals have done their best to create an atmosphere which has enabled the applicants to state their case reasonably, and that, in general, they have to the best of their ability been sympathetic. I hope that the speeches made in this Debate will be noted by those persons who have so in advisedly been making remarks about the applicants and about certain organisations.
There is another matter to which I want to refer. When the hardship committees were set up, we were led to believe that they would consider the real cases of hardship. Undoubtedly, the committees have to cover a great deal of ground, for hardship can be pleaded from a hundred and one different points of view. Is the Minister satisfied that the committees are meeting the real hardship cases? As the age categories of those called up rise, there will come before the hardship committees more and more men who have great hardships in front of them, in the sense that many of them will have the responsibility of running businesses, often their own businesses which they have built up. Probably they will not be engaged on work of national importance, and will come before the committees with a legitimate appeal. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what instructions may have been given as a guide to the hardship committees. When some of the younger men were called up, a widowed mother came to see me in regard to her son having been called upon to register. He was her only son and she had no daughters; she was a widow, and to all intents and purposes, she was an invalid. Her son was the only person upon whom she could rely to act as her nurse, and he did it remarkably well, in spite of his being in business. I suggested to her that she and her son should make an appeal to the hardship committee. Very little consideration was given to her. She stated quite a reasonable case and she produced a doctor's certificate. Her son was called to the Colours almost immediately. The hardship committee said that they would see that he was not sent too far away from his home. His home was in my division of West Willesden, but he was sent to Staffordshire.
Of course, I do not know what may be the difficulties, but I am raising this instance in the hope that the Minister will give us some idea of what are his views on the matter and what instructions may have been given to the committees. I should have thought that it would have been an easy thing to have deferred for a while the mobilisation of that youngman, so as to give his widowed mother an opportunity of making some other arrangements. Being an invalid, she was confronted with the position that the only place for her to go was into a work-

house, where she would be cared for. That was a real case of hardship. Yesterday, I had another case, not from a person in my constituency, but from a man who happened to be a member of a trade union with which I am connected. It was a case of an aged father, an invalid, who was wholly dependent upon his son for help in supplementing the income of the home. The son was also acting as a nurse to his father. I am sure that such cases of hardship appeal to the sentiment of the House and the Minister, and I hope we may be told by the Minister whether any guidance is given to the hardship committees with regard to these cases.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I regret that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) did not find it possible to remain in the Committee very long after she had made her speech. I regret it more particularly because she made some references to me—no doubt, I brought them upon myself, and therefore, I do not complain—which were not accurate, and which I feel call for some explanation from me, especially as they bear very closely upon what has so far been the main subject of discussion. I wish to join with those hon. Members who have pleaded for broad sympathy in dealing with these applicants. I think I am entitled to make that plea because I am one of the Members of the House who, during the last war, took a view very like that which is being taken by these boys to-day. The Noble Lady said that if a man was an out-and-out pacifist on Christian grounds, his objection was spiritual and therefore ought to be respected; and she implied that no objection arrived at in any other way ought to be so respected. In particular, she said that an objection based upon political grounds could not be properly included among the grounds for exemption by the tribunals. I do not understand why an objection which is based upon political grounds should not be conscientious.
I should have liked to have asked the Noble Lady what she would do with a case of this sort. Let us suppose that there was a German citizen, living in Germany in September, 1939, who said, "I am not a pacifist, I cannot say that I believe war to be wrong in itself, and I cannot say that there are not some just


wars; but the fact that I believe some wars are just does not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that all wars are just." Let us suppose that such a man said to the authority which called him into the German army to take part in the attack upon Poland, "This is wrong; this war upon Poland is without any kind of moral justification, and whatever may be the consequences to myself, I decline to have any part or lot in it—I will not serve." I want to ask the Minister whether such a man would not be entitled to say that, although he did not object to all wars, he objected to serving, and that his objection was a con scientious objection. If such a man said, "I believe I shall be doing a morally unjustifiable thing if I fire my rifle at a Polish soldier in a war in which I believe the Poles are right and the Germans wrong," would not that bean objection on conscientious grounds? Would not a wise community respect views of that kind? Would it force a man who honestly and conscientiously held that view into a campaign which was an offence to every thing which he held to be right? Of course not. I do not want to engage in controversial history at this moment, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that not every war in which our own country has been involved has been a just one. I can remember the days—

The Chairman: I do not want unduly to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope that, now that he is coming to the question of the justness or otherwise of wars, he will realise that he is getting beyond the bounds of the subject under debate. I want also to point out to hon. Members a little difficulty I may be in if they stray too far. They must not attempt in this Debate to do the work of the tribunals, and therefore, they must not deal with their ideas as to what is the meaning of "conscientious objection." That has to be decided by the tribunals in each case.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to you, Sir Dennis, and I assure you that I am most anxious to keep within the narrow and rather difficult limits of what is proper in this Debate. I did not intend to discuss the rights and wrongs of this or any other war. I intended to make a short reference to the days when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was so active and

successful an administrator during the last war, was himself a conscientious objector to a previous war, in order to make the point that where an objection is based upon political grounds, it may nevertheless be a conscientious and indeed a spiritual one. I wanted to inform the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth that in the last war I held that view. I am not a Christian, and nor, at that time, was I a member of any political party. I was very young. Perhaps I may say that my mind was dominated by what I thought were ideals. I had a belief in civilisation as civilisation—as the onward march of the human spirit. I thought that war was a blasphemy and a sacrilege against that onward march, and I thought that the shortest and most effective way in which any individual could make a contribution towards wiping out war, that blot upon civilisation, was to refuse to have any part or lot in it, whenever, wherever, and however it arose. It was not a religious or a political objection in any of the accepted definitions of those words, but I assure the Committee that I held it in conscience.
I believe I could have been exempted otherwise in those days. Certainly, one tribunal after another pressed upon me some kind of alternative service, but I felt it right to say, "No, I cannot make a bargain about it; I object to this thing, and I cannot enter into any sort of arrangement about being excused." I spent some 27 months in prison in consequence. I may have been quite wrong. Certainly, I do not hold those views to-day in quite the same form as that in which I held them then. I think the whole world is a poorer place spiritually now than it was then and I think the war itself contributed to that degeneration. I do not think it would be possible for me now to hold the views which I held then in quite the same form or to act just in the way in which I acted then, but I like to think—again I may be wrong—that I am no worse a man to-day because of the line which I took then, or the opinions which I held, or what happened to me in those days. On the contrary, I think I am better for it and I have, may I say, a certain pride in the recollection of it, even though, as I freely and readily admit, my views now are not altogether those which I held then.
I feel confident that up and down the country to-day there are young men who are not articulate, who do not find it easy to bandy texts and arguments and questions with judges who are trained in the art of cross-examination, while they themselves are probably appearing on the witness stand for the first time in their lives, but who, nevertheless, feel these things deeply, whose minds are obsessed by a great bewilderment. I cannot think that it is right that those men, perhaps because they are inarticulate, perhaps because they are not skilled in verbal fencing, should be damned and condemned and abused as many of them have been—let us admit it—by chairmen of tribunals who ought to have known better. I am not saying that that is the general experience. I am glad to think that it is not, but such cases do occur. I will not mention names, but the Minister knows of one or two cases of chairmen of tribunals who have displayed a lamentable lack of judicial temper in a matter which requires the greatest tact and judgment. I do not wish to say more. I hope I have not strayed too far beyond the bounds of order and that the Committee will forgive me for the personal reference which I could not, in the circumstances, keep out of my speech. I urge the Minister—I know he wants to do so—to keep a close eye on the working of these tribunals, and if he feels satisfied in any case that an appointment to the chair of one of these tribunals is not working out very happily or successfully, I hope he will not be afraid to say so and to act accordingly.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I think the Committee appreciate the obvious sincerity with which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has dealt with his own experience in regard to these tribunals, but I do not think it is always sufficiently realised how difficult is the task which the tribunals have to perform. After all, in the House of Commons, rightly or wrongly, we shirk giving any definition of "conscientious objector," and the tribunals are left with an extremely wide and difficult discretion in that connection. There is no use in the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) or anybody else saying that only those who put forward religious ideas as a ground of objection should be exempt.

That is not in the Act, and any tribunal which regarded the religious test, important though it be, as the only test would be infringing the very Act under which it was set up by Parliament. On the other hand, it is not enough for a tribunal merely to take at their face value the observations which any conscientious objector, so called, makes when he comes before them. If a gentleman comes forward and says, "I love Hitler," or "I do not like war," or "I strongly object on religious and political grounds," the tribunal has to look into the background of his objection in order to find whether it is genuine or not.
I do not wish to go into the wide question of political objection, except to say that I do not believe any tribunal could take as a conscientious objection the mere observation by a person that on political grounds he disliked war. To accept political grounds alone would lead to the reductio ad absurdum that I might be entitled, when the party opposite, in a year or two, comes into power, to say that on political grounds I objected to paying my taxes, because I did not like the use which the Labour party was making of them. It is necessary to go deeper than that. When people are inclined to be critical of the actions of these tribunals it should be remembered that every tribunal has to keep in mind the fact that it has to do its duty, as far as it can, not to the conscientious objector only, but to the country as well. It has to avoid, if possible, allowing the view to get about that persons can get off simply because they want to shirk service.
The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) referred to the question of clergy being called before the tribunal. I agree that to call a clergyman before a tribunal and to ask him, "Is it not a fact that the official view of your church is in favour of war?" does not take you anywhere. But what I think does take you some part of the way, when somebody has pleaded a religious or even a political objection, is to try to find out where that objection originated, whether it suddenly came into being when the person concerned thought he was in danger of having to fight, or was a view which had been genuinely held by him for a considerable time. In many such cases it has undoubtedly been helpful to


tribunals to get the views of a man's own clergyman as to his personal views in the past, thereby enabling some test to be made of the man's word.

Mr. McGovern: I realise that an individual has a right to bring a clergyman to testify for him and I am not against that. Even if an individual states to atribunal that a clergyman knows what his views are and the case is adjourned in order that that clergyman may testify, I do not object to that. But to bring a clergyman to the tribunal and ask him what is the official view of his church and then to condemn a man on that official attitude, is, I say, altogether wrong.

Mr. Raikes: I appreciate the hon. Member's point and I only desire to make clear the difference between the two uses of a clergyman's evidence in these courts. It would be unfortunate if the view got about that this Committee was criticising the use of the evidence of clergymen or of any other persons who knew the objectors pretty well. The task of the tribunals is likely to become more and more difficult as time goes on. In the early days of a war you do not find so much feeling between one household and another as you will get in later stages, when, as may well happen, there are heavy casualties, and a widow, say, has sons killed while she sees other people's sons next door to her, relieved from the obligation to serve. These tribunals will have to be exceedingly careful to make it absolutely plain that each individual case is examined most closely in order to find whether an objection is genuine or not. The criticisms which we have heard to-day have been largely on the ground that the tribunals are too severe. But if they take too easy a view of their task, if they take the statements of all objectors at their face value without close consideration, I am afraid they will act in a manner which will be detrimental to the moral of the nation and not helpful to the winning of the war. They will have to be very careful not to allow the view to get about that all a man has to do is to talk a bit of humbug before a tribunal in order to save his own skin.

5.56 p.m.

Mr.Sorensen: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said he was doing his best to

keep within the narrow confines of this Vote. I was rather astonished at his statement, because I have been struck by the extraordinarily wide range of the Debate so far. I did not anticipate that we should spend such a long time this afternoon in the discussion of pacifism, both theoretical and practical. I do not propose to say much on that aspect of the Vote, but I would like to offer some remarks in regard to the tribunals dealing with conscientious objectors. Everyone in this Committee is an actual or potential conscientious objector. There are circumstances in which a number of the hon. Members opposite would be violent objectors to laws passed by a Socialist Government. We have to realise that there is a real problem in any society, whether capitalist or Socialist, regarding the individual who will not accept the law of the land.
The law may be right or wrong. That is not the point. Inevitably, in any kind of society, you are bound to have individuals who feel within themselves that they must resist the law. In this case unless a man can prove himself to be a conscientious objector he must, at a certain age, be conscripted for military service. Until an individual proves to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he is a conscientious objector, he is held to be liable to military service and the same position would arise in other respects under other Governments and in other societies. It is always possible for an individual or a group of individuals conscientiously to object to certain laws. I can understand, therefore, the difficulty with which the tribunals are confronted and I have pleasure in agreeing that in the majority of cases, the members of the tribunals are doing their work as conscientiously as the objectors themselves would desire.
It is equally true, however, that there have been strange discrepancies and disparities in the decisions of tribunals. The Minister has had his attention drawn to the fact that, apparently, it is assumed that there are more genuine conscientious objectors in the Bristol area than in London. It does not seem to say much for London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Apparently 30 per cent. of conscientious objectors in the Bristol area have been granted absolute exemption, but the number of cases in which the


London tribunals have granted exemption has been not more than 1 per cent. at the outside. I mention that in passing, because something ought to be done to secure uniformity in these decisions. I believe the Minister of Labour recognises that there are conscientious objectors who base their objections on broad ethical and moral grounds, as well as those who object on religious and Christian grounds. My own brother-in-law, a former Member of this House, was imprisoned for two-and-a-half years during the last war because he objected on political grounds and we have to realise that a man may be perfectly genuine in objecting on political grounds and may be willing to suffer prolonged hardship in order to vindicate his objection.
I am sure the Minister appreciates that point of view, and I only hope that he will find some means in the weeks and months immediately ahead, of bringing about, first, a realisation of the view that a man may still be conscientious, if he does not hold to a particular theological or doctrinal position, and, secondly, a greater uniformity of decisions as between one tribunal and another. At the present time the number of conscientious objectors is relatively small, but if, unfortunately, we have to extend the age of military service up to 40, as in the last war, it will probably be found that there are approximately 100,000 men in this country who are conscientious objectors. By an easy calculation it is possible to estimate that there are at least half a million people in the country who are pacifists of one kind or another. That is a very considerable number.
It is on no ground of special treatment that I, and others, plead for the just treatment of the conscientious objectors who want to uphold the traditions of this country of freedom and liberty. Obviously, you cannot treat this potential number of 100,000 as consisting of cranks, fools, knaves or idiots. They may hold, not only genuine convictions, but they may have a case to support their convictions. I have noticed the tendency in various parts of the House to accept a man as a perfectly genuine pacifist so long as at the same time he is accepted as being a little simple in the head—like the simple early Christians, pictured in Bernard Shaw's play, "Androcles and the Lion." The fact

is that there are many conscientious objectors who have a very strong case, and, included among them, are some of the finest minds in the country. Further, do not let it be thought that a pacifist is holding himself up as a self-righteous person, morally superior to everybody else. Pacifists know, and recognise that there are very great difficulties for the tribunals, and they appreciate that a very great step forward has been made since the last war in that we should be able to establish tribunals who on the whole give fair treatment. Pacifists think that they are also serving the country, even though it may not meet with the approval of this House, or of the majority of the country. I can assure the Committee that those I know are genuinely trying to serve the interests of the country and humanity. They think that at long last their services will be as true as those fighting in the Forces.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the hardship committees. It should be appreciated that in some cases very genuine hardship has not always been met with the consideration that, was expected. I can quote, as others have done, many instances of men with small businesses, or in similar circumstances, who have been forced to break up their business and eventually find their way into the fighting forces. Greater consideration might be given to these small business men. It is a very great misfortune that applicants before the hardship committees cannot have a legal representative as can conscientious objectors. Surely, it should be open to applicants on the basis of industrial or business hardship to have a legal representative as well, because many of these business men are just as incapable of effectively expressing their case as some of the conscientious objectors. The Minister of Labour might sympathetically consider the possibility of allowing business applicants to have a legal representative to express their case in an expert way.
Finally, I would express the hope that more postponements of service will be granted by the hardship committees on the grounds of compassion to only sons of widows. I have brought this matter before the House and have personally drawn the attention of the Minister of Labour to it. I hope he will deal with it sympathetically. At the same time, although I have been assured that it is


possible to grant postponement to only sons of widows, I know of no case, as yet, where it has been done. I earnestly hope that in the future functions of the hardship committees it will be appreciated that only sons of widows can secure postponement, not only interpreted on the basis of financial hardship, but in other ways as well. In other parts of the world, and I think in France, only sons have been allowed postponement of service and even complete cancellation. Whatever reason we may feel on this matter, I think it is generally accepted that only sons of widows stand in a special category. In many cases they are only sons of widows who lost sons in the last war. I could give many harrowing instances from my own personal experiences of women who have lost their husbands after only a few months of married life during the last war who now are likely to have their only sons called up and taken away from them. Cannot hardship be interpreted to cover cases of this kind not merely from the standpoint of financial difficulty, but of humanity as well?

6.10 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am very glad that the House has had this Debate to-day, because it will probably enable the Minister of Labour to introduce the reforms in the regulations which are apparently very essential at the present time. In so far as my experience in the North of England is concerned, regarding the tribunals to which reference has been made, I would say that these have been conducted extraordinarily fairly and dispassionately, and, indeed, generously so far as judgments are concerned. I happen to know the judge, hailing from Newcastle, to whom reference has been made. I can only conclude that his irregular observations were merely a lapse, because he has a reputation for great fairness and consideration. We can only conclude that he was carried away.
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would, I think, be very dangerous on a tribunal, for while she expresses her appreciation of the work of the tribunals she states that those who were excused would, if she had her way, be compelled to do most disagreeable tasks—that is to say that those who were excused, against their will would be forced to perform

certain national tasks in aid of the nation's work. The main objection, in my judgment, to the administration or the handling of tribunals—the prices of goods tribunals, the aliens tribunals, and the hardship tribunals—is that the regulations seem to ignore the fact that we are living in a democratic age. It is difficult to understand why those appealing before such tribunals are debarred from having a legal representative. All would agree, I think, that it is probably one of the most difficult tasks in the world for an applicant, without previous knowledge and experience, to appear before a tribunal.
We all know the kind of cases. I have experienced them as a magistrate, and have seen that it is difficult for a man to say any word in his defence. In the case of hardship tribunals the situation is more intense because the applicant feels that his very life or liberty is in danger. We can understand his feelings and that his nervousness is likely to prevent him from expounding his own case to his, or anybody else's, satisfaction. It is true that applicants may have trade union representation, personal friends, or relatives, but these are not skilled legal representatives, and they do not, and cannot, make up for the lack of a legally trained mind. With regard to the apprehensions in appearing before their fellows, I have had cases in my own division in which the wives of soldiers, seeking additional relief, have actually forgotten the number of their family and have had to go back again, or make further appeals in writing to the tribunal, on the ground that their nervousness carried them away.
It may be of historic interest, in this connection, to recall Earl Baldwin's ennoblement. I happened to be in the House of Lords at that time after the ceremony had been completed. One would imagine that with all his wide experience nothing would have affected his equanimity, and yet he observed to me, "Adams it is the most nerve-racking experience of my life." Why was that so? It was because in the interregnum between leaving this House and the period of his ennoblement he had had time to reflect upon that forthcoming experience, and it had become a matter of nervous apprehension.
These tribunals are not judicial bodies. Bodies dealing with Income Tax are also


administrative bodies, but the law carefully provides that in order that justice shall be done between the Crown and the appellant in the matter of taxation he shall be entitled to the best legal advice that he can provide. It is singular in this connection that, while the National Service (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, lay down that the applicant is debarred from being represented by a counsel or a solicitor, yet the conscientious objector is put in a privileged position. I do not object to his having all the benefits that can be afforded to him, because some of my friends are honest conscientious objectors. If, however, it is just and proper in their case it must be equally just and proper in the case of applicants to hardship committees. I am satisfied that in my constituency, although applicants can be represented by trade union officials or friends, great hardship arises because they are denied legal assistance. I would ask the Minister to take this matter into serious consideration and introduce the necessary change to enable applicants to have legal representation.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I should like to ask the Minister for a further explanation why an applicant before a hardship tribunal is not allowed to have legal advice. He is allowed to bring with him his trade union secretary or a friend, but in many cases the person concerned is not a member of a trade union. His position is thus worse than that of others who have the advantage of having their case put by a person who has more experience in putting cases than the ordinary individual has. Many small business men, shopkeepers and others, may suffer particular hardship if they cannot have a postponement in which to put their affairs in order. The Minister made a concession recently so that the applicant could be represented at the appeal tribunal, and that seems to have admitted the case for allowing them to be represented, while leaving the chief injustice unremedied, because it is at the first hearing that the most important decisions are taken. If the decision of the hardship committee is unanimous no appeal can be made, and it can only be made by leave of the committee.
It is, therefore, important that the applicant's case should be put clearly in the first instance. I have the case of a man who suffers from a serious stutter

and was incapable of putting his case clearly. He was allowed to take a friend, but why should he not have been allowed to take the solicitor who normally attended to his business affairs and knew them nearly as well as he did and who could have put his case clearly and simply? I find it difficult to understand what is the general reason for this discrimination against the legal profession. It is trained in putting complicated cases as simply and clearly as possible, and surely it is an advantage that the case of a man who feels that he will suffer real hardship unless his service is postponed should be put as clearly and simply as possible.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I hope the Minister will look into the case which has just been put. I cannot understand it, except on the basis that in no circumstances can a counsel be regarded as a friend. It may be due to the necessity of preventing the legal atmosphere permeating a tribunal which ought not to be dependent on legality for the correctness of its decisions. In the court of referees a similar procedure is adopted and I would, from experience, vote against the inclusion of the law and of the legal atmosphere in the proceedings. At the same time, I do not see why in the case of the hardship committee a case cannot go to appeal unless it is allowed by the chairman of the committee which has made the decision. There is little chance of an appeal being allowed in those circumstances, because the appellant has to show that some new evidence can be brought which was not produced in the original claim.
I do not want to go over the interesting arguments as to the conduct of the tribunals, but I know that in the north more than 50 per cent. of the appellants have been dealt with in a way which leaves it possible for them to appeal to another tribunal. My complaint is that the appellate tribunal is held in London. I am not complaining about the treatment of the men who have appealed and have come to London, for they have received railway fares and reasonable expenses, but in the interests of national economy and of transport facilities I think that where a large number of people are given the opportunity of appealing it is only common sense to set up in the north an appeal court to which they can go. I do


not think all the legal luminaries are in London. I know something about some who are outside London, and it would not be beyond the power of the Minister to find in Lancashire or Yorkshire a judge of sufficient acumen to try these cases. I would, therefore, appeal to the Minister to set up an appellate tribunal somewhere in the north in order to save the journeyings to and from London.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think the Committee can feel that we have had a useful discussion on this Vote. We have, I am sure, heard a variety of language and a variety of opinions. I can only say that when the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton) began to repeat the language that had been used by other people, I was a little disappointed that he did not, as a colonel, give us a specimen of what he could do himself. I recall that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) once told the House that in his younger, and, I am sure, what he would regard as his unregenerate, days he was a private in one of the Volunteer regiments in Glasgow and got a prize of £5 for being the smartest and best-turned-out soldier in the regiment. We have heard how far he was prepared to go in the way of quotations, and if that is what a private can do, I would have liked to hear how high a colonel could have risen.
I want to deal with one or two points that have arisen in the Debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), I regret that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) made her speech and then disappeared so quickly, because I hope that what she said this afternoon will have as little influence on the tribunals as it will have on the Committee. If they were asked to adopt any such rough and ready generalisation for a definition of conscience as she suggested it would be disastrous, because she is, apparently, prepared to exempt spiritual Christians. I suppose that there is nothing more difficult to define than a Christian.

Mr. MacLaren: No, that is easy.

Mr. Ede: I know very religious people who would decline to regard a lady who holds the views that are generally attri-

buted to the Noble Lady as a Christian. I know that while I humbly call myself a Christian, and while I realise how far short I am bound to fall from any such real definition, there are people who would distinctly deny to me and to my denomination the appellation of Christian. Therefore, it is very difficult to adopt any such rough and ready generalisation. I suggest that the proper thing for the tribunal to do is to hear the man himself and his witnesses and endeavour to find out in each individual case how far a man's conscience is offended by military service. There can be no other safe ground on which a decision can be reached. We must realise that conscience is a highly individual thing and that we cannot generalise about it. We all know people who, generally, are most scrupulously honest, and yet they apparently have no conscientious objection to trying to get a ride on a bus or in a railway train without paying the proper fare. I have often heard it suggested that there are certain people who are most scrupulously honest with regard to every document they sign, except their Income Tax forms. It only proves how difficult a task this House has set these tribunals in asking them to decide this issue without-giving them any real definition of "conscience" or "conscientious objection."
I have only one other thing to say about the tribunals. I speak as one who was not a conscientious objector in the last war. Were I of military age, I would not be a conscientious objector in this war. Therefore, I hope I shall be regarded as one who has not been individually interested in this controversy. I have been distressed at times at reading the comments that have been passed by members of tribunals on men who in very difficult circumstances, have been called upon to lay before a tribunal their innermost and sacred instincts. It is always easy to make fun of sacred things that another person happens to possess. The Minister is a Nonconformist, and he knows the way in which, in the long and bitter history of past centuries in this country, the Nonconformist denominations have been held up to public ridicule for the way in which they expressed their individual views on matter of conscience. I could hope it were possible for some members of tribunals to refrain on occasion from making the


quick comment that comes rather easily to the mind and sometimes far too easily to the lips when one is handling matters of this kind. Let us realise that, trivial and perhaps puerile as some of the statements made by these men may appear to persons sitting on the tribunal, they are statements representing very sacred principles to the persons who make them and to hundreds of thousands of other people in the country. It does not assist to get a good spirit in this matter or a feeling of respect for the tribunals and their decisions when such comments are uttered.
We all know the case of a judge who advised a body of country magistrates that they should not comment on a case and that, while their decisions would probably be right, their comments would almost certainly be wrong. One feels that that general principle should be applied by some tribunals to a much greater degree than has been the case up to the moment; but, on the whole, the tribunals have done their work well and have earned the gratitude of this House, which placed a very heavy burden upon them. Any criticism which I may appear to have made against them is directed mainly to ensuring that they might gain outside this House some of the gratitude that many of us inside this House feel for them.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The Committee is very much obliged to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the speech which he has just made. It is frequently the individual criticism which gets the headlines, while the solid appreciation goes unrewarded. I am therefore grateful personally for what the hon. Member has said. It was my responsibility to carry out the will of this House in appointing the tribunals, and I must not be taken as accepting for one moment the criticism which has been levelled at their constitution. I have no doubt that members of the tribunals will read all that has been said. According to my experience, there is a tremendous volume of opinion in this country that is most sympathetic to the conscientious objectors, and I am sure that the handling of the problem in this war is immeasurably superior to that of the last war. That is due, of course, to the wisdom of Parliament in learning from experience. I assure the Committee that I have really tried to face up to my

duty—of course in consultation with the Lord Chancellor—in selecting the members of the tribunals.
The Noble Lady hoped that great care would be taken in this matter. I can assure her that great care was taken. Members of long experience have, I am glad to say, expressed their appreciation several times of the difficulties of the problem. It was not always easy to get the tribunals formed. One of the ablest members of a particular tribunal replied to me, when I asked him to serve: "It is a public duty and it is so disagreeable that I cannot refuse to do it." That is a human and intimate story, but it sheds a flood of light upon the position. In regard to the actual conduct of the tribunals it is not for me to judge. Parliament did not attempt in this subtle and individual matter to lay down anything in a hard and fast manner, but put upon the Minister and the Lord Chancellor the responsibility of appointing the tribunals. It asked Members of the Government to try, in doing this duty, to secure a high standard of impartiality. Of all the many duties I have had to undertake in the course of my ministerial life I can honestly tell the Committee and the country that there has not been one about which I have taken more personal care. It was my duty to ask members of the tribunal to undertake a very difficult task.
It is the incidental remark that sometimes gets the headlines, but you want to have been in the court, heard what provoked it, and known the atmosphere of the court before you can realise the situation and give a correct judgment. The right hon. Gentleman who followed me at the opening of the Debate said there appeared to be a lack of uniformity in the decisions of the various tribunals. Analysis of the full results shows that the lack of uniformity is not as great as would appear. I have analysed all the results in regard to the issuing of unconditional exemptions and have put the tribunals into the categories of those who have given that exemption in less than 10 per cent. of their cases, those who have given between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. and those who have given over 20 per cent. It happens that seven, the largest number of tribunals in any of these three categories, are in the middle category. Their decisions vary between 11 per cent. and 18 per cent. That is a very remarkable figure when you con-


sider the subtlety of the issue, the difference in people's circumstances and the many different backgrounds between one area and another. There were three tribunals which some hon. Members will think have been too lenient, but other hon. Members will say that they have been just right, while five tribunals have given that exemption in less than 8 per cent. of the cases. That general statement will put the matter more into perspective than some of our discussion could do.
It has been my duty, where there happened to be a difference of principle, to go to the appeal tribunal. It happens that the only point of principle that we have discussed this afternoon is the very one which I have done my best to clear up. The Minister of Labour cannot be the judge in these matters. The tribunals are the judges. It is my duty to elicit from the appeal tribunal a decision upon a difficult point of principle in order to get the matter established as far as possible.

Mr. Silverman: When the Ministry of Health is the authority on a point of principle on which the Ministry expresses no view but invites a decision by an appellate tribunal, does the Minister take care to see that all the reasons for and against on both sides are put forward, or does he identify himself with one side, in regard to the point of principle?

Mr. Brown: He sets the case out and asks for results, in terms of the particular case. There was a case recently of a man who by reason of conscience which was against all war, and the question was whether a man who had a political conscience about a particular war should be exempt. What the appeal tribunal did was to give a decision, but it did not give the judgment on the general point of principle.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is it not a fact that in the particular case to which the Minister has referred the point of principle was not determined; but the man, who had been judged by the lower tribunal as entitled to absolute exemption, has as a result of the Minister's appeal, been passed into the Army for military service; that the man is now awaiting arrest and will consequently go to prison because of his conscientious objection to war?

Mr. Brown: I could not accept that statement, because anybody who is aware of the whole details of the case will know from the setting of the case and the way it was heard, and from the attitude taken by the friends who advised the man, that I am not able to accept the last sentence. It may be unfortunate that the matter was upset on my appeal, but that fact shows the point of difficulty and how wise the House of Commons was not to lay down a definition.
May I put another matter into focus in a very simple way? I want the Committee to know just how things are going. I gather that the Committee may be inclined to think that hardship tribunals are not dealing with the real cause and that there is not a remedy in a particular hard case. The fact is that, up to 31st January, the hardship committees had considered 13,052 cases. They have granted postponement in 7,666 cases, and they have refused postponement in 5,386 cases, so that the majority of the decisions before the hardship committees have been in favour of the applicants in regard to postponement. I think that will relieve the minds of many hon. Members who have merely examined one or two cases. I go further than that. While it is true that there are limitations by regulations about the appeals, there is no restriction upon the Minister in these cases of the type that have been referred to in the Committee this afternoon, including the three cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. I would say to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) that the Umpire is now sitting in the North.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would point out that I was referring to the Appeal Tribunal with regard to conscientious objectors.

Mr. Brown: There is no reason why the Appeal Tribunal should not meet anywhere in the country if the course of business and the general convenience make it necessary to do so. With regard to appeals that have been made, 283 have been made so far, 67 by applicants and 216 on behalf of the Minister. Up to 15th February, there were 50 judgments given, in 33 cases the umpire has granted postponement, and in 17 he has refused it. A large proportion of appeals made by the Minister have been made on behalf of the applicants, and I think that will


relieve the minds of hon. Members so far as that is concerned.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Has the Minister any figures showing how many applications have been made for leave to appeal and how many of those applications have been refused?

Mr. Brown: No, I have not the figures now. I do not know whether I could get them, but if I have them in convenient form, I shall be glad to produce them. I am not sure that they are in convenient form.

Mr. Creech Jones: In the case of the hardship tribunal, where the postponement is for a period of six months, would it be competent for the men who receive such postponement to appeal again at the end of that period?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, they can apply again. Six months is a convenient period, and circumstances may change one way or the other, but there is no limit to six months. I was asked what instructions have been given to the hardship committees. The instructions will be found in 1939 Cmd. Paper 1541, and the chief headings are these: "Domestic position," "Business responsibilities and interests," "Individual circumstances and other cases." I think that these regulations are reasonably clear.
I will now refer to the other points which have been puzzling hon. Members. Three hon. Members have said that they do not understand why there is one procedure with regard to representation before the tribunal and another before the hardship committee. The problem which was set me with regard to tribunals was a double one. The first was to judge a series of human cases, most of them domestic, and some of them affecting men with the business responsibilities. I asked myself what kind of tribunal I should have; was there a tribunal existing which would be suitable to determine, not generally matters of opinion or argument, but matters of fact? It so happens that I had in my mind a well-tried tribunal. Whatever difficulties we may have had in the courts of referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act in the early days, we have had 25 years' experience of them, and I am sure the hon. Member for Farnworth is right when he says that

whatever view one might have about the hardship committee, he would not change the system of the court of referees. I am sure that a large number of solicitors who are chairmen of these courts of referees would not change that view.
The composition of the court of referees is that you have a solicitor as chairman; he has with him a representative of local employers and representatives of the trade unions who are chosen from a wide panel in the area. During the 25 years in which they have met the overwhelming majority of the courts of referees have met in private and not in public. Twelve years ago there was a great agitation in order to change the system. A man may have had a friend to represent him, but he could not have a legal representative, and there was a strong agitation. The case was put to a Royal Commission, which heard exhaustive evidence and came to the decision that it was undesirable to make a change. I agree that there are cases where a lawyer can put a case better than other people, but the Commission came to the conclusion that there would be a great advantage in having a human and intimate procedure, not bound by the rules of evidence.
This is not an easy case, and I have considered it sympathetically. I said to myself, "Here is a tribunal of a kind which we should have. It is a well-established tribunal; it is used to determining matters of fact, and it is a tribunal whose members are used to people telling them a simple story in a simple way. It is a tribunal where people are used to coming and giving evidence on behalf of applicants who cannot give evidence clearly, a tribunal which has worked extremely well over a quarter of a century." My alternative was to form a new set of tribunals. That would have been a tremendous task, setting up hundreds of tribunals; finding the personnel to do the kind of work required would have been a formidable task indeed. I came to the conclusion that the tribunal I had in mind had the desirable kind of atmosphere, and the results which I have read to the Committee indicate that at any rate the majority of the applicants have succeeded in making their cases. The Government were asked to consider it; they did so, weighed the arguments, and came to the conclusion that


they should do two things. They had to weigh the evidence put before them by the Law Society, and they ought to ask the confederation of employers on the one hand and the trade union representatives on the other as to whether they thought this change should be made. The Government received a reply from both of them saying that they thought the change ought not to be made.
We also considered an argument put forward that before an umpire there was more likelihood of argument than before a court, and that we ought therefore to make it possible to have legal representation before the Umpire. That is being done. I think the House will agree that the problem was formidable. If it had been said that the hardship committee had not been working well that would have been a different story. However, I am happy to say that I have had a mere trickle of letters on this issue. I therefore came to the conclusion that the old well-established atmosphere of the original court of referees now applied to the hardship tribunal is working well, and the Government having considered that have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to change it That is the answer to that case.

Mr. Tomlinson: Could the Minister inform the House how these courts are called together and on what basis the rota is fixed to deal with these urgent cases?

Mr. Brown: The usual practice is to make the rota work as easily as possible. It is a very heavy strain, of course, but what is done is to try and make the whole thing go as fairly and easily as possible.

Mr. Tomlinson: I presume it is the secretary of the committee who decides?

Mr. Brown: Certainly. There is one addition which I should make to my answer. If the hon. Member looks in the Postponement Regulations, he will find that there is one exception to the statement I made that there was no limit to the period of postponement. The exception is with regard to the limit of 12 months to postponement on grounds of business responsibilities.
I now wish to refer to the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Colonel Burton). The

answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that we are continuing the farm training scheme for boys. Since the outbreak of the war we have altered the Schedule of areas of recruitment to include Margate, Ramsgate, and Southend. The hon. and gallant Member also asked about getting men out of the Army. He will understand that there are two problems. There is first the problem of the men going in. The other problem is more difficult, because it arises out of the fact that a decision was made before the war not to apply the Schedule of Reserved Occupations to the Territorial Forces in its present form. I think it will be understood why this was so. At a time when we had not got full establishment it would have made great difficulties, but now that position has been met. I may say that efforts have been made to expedite this matter.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Minister permit me to put a question on this matter of the allocation of these men? Who is responsible for the case of, say, motor mechanics who might be very useful in a mechanised corps being sent to do ordinary infantry work, and what steps are being taken to prevent round pegs going into square holes?

Mr. Brown: Three things have been done. An exhaustive examination is being made in the Army. Then there are employers who are asking for skilled men who, they think, should not be in the Army, and in cases where they provide lists of men we forward them to the War Office. The Army make their examination, and in a number of cases men have been released. The last point is this: Some of the trade unions have provided a list of names, and there is an arrangement by which some of the men concerned are being gradually released. It is not always easy to release a man who is overseas.

Mr. Woodburn: I cannot have made myself quite clear. I am referring to a man like a motor mechanic who has been called up, who states that he has certain mechanical skill, and who feels that if he were put into a unit looking after horses, his skill would not be used to the best advantage. I am wondering whether it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour for allocating him to that particular corps or whether the responsibility is that of the Army itself.

Mr. Brown: It depends on the man's position under the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. A skilled man of the kind the hon. Member seems to have in mind is called up for the Army only if he is going into the corresponding trade in the Army. If he has not correctly stated his trade when he registered, that is his fault. Every effort is made to get not only the occupations of people, but any particular aptitudes or hobbies that they have.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's Department or the War Office which allocates them?

Mr. Brown: My Department determines, inside the working of the Schedule, where a man should be allocated; but it is the War Office which decides how he shall be used when he is in the Army.

Mr. Tomlinson: When the Minister of Labour comes into conflict with the Minister of National Service, who decides?

Mr. Brown: We exercise reasonable good will, and always manage to get a reconciliation.

7.2 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: In the last war I was chairman of a tribunal, and I found that in many cases—I am speaking of hard cases—it was quite impossible for men, especially small tradesmen, to put their cases before the tribunal. I found, however, that the conscientious objector was usually well able to do it. I think that every man should be permitted to engage legal assistance for pleading his case before the tribunal. Here you have a committee of about 21, and you can quite understand that a man who is not able to put his case properly has not the same chance as one who has the "gift of the gab." As the liberty of every Englishman, whether he be a conscientious objector, a small trader, or anybody else, is dear to us, every man should be able to engage legal counsel on his behalf.

7.4 p.m.

Major Milner: I had not intended to intervene, but, in view of the fallacious arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, I feel bound to saya word or two. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the reason, in the main, why legal representation was not permitted for applicants appearing before hardship tribunals was that the question

before the tribunal was one of fact—and hence not a proper one, presumably, for legal representation. But I would point out to him that all litigation and all criminal trials turn upon questions of fact. If the right hon. Gentleman's reason was a good one, it would be a very good reason for doing without a prosecutor or counsel for the defence in a criminal trial. The argument was completely fallacious. The matter goes further than that, though I have only just appreciated it, because these matters are done by regulation, and, to say the least, have not been brought prominently before the House.
While legal representation is forbidden in the case of hardship committees, and also in the case of prices of goods committees—where an inquiry can lead to a fine of £500 and imprisonment for two years—and also in the case of the aliens tribunals, it is permitted, apparently, for what many people think not the most meritorious class of applicant, namely, the conscientious objector. I should have thought it extremely difficult for a lawyer to express adequately the conscience and feeling of such an objector, although no doubt lawyers do their best in such cases. I should have thought, however, that cases involving questions of life or liberty or cases where the ruin of a business, or the case of the only son of a widow, and all sorts of considerations of that kind, are such that legal representation should be permitted. It would not be compulsory, of course, in any sense of the word; it would be permissible; and, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal benches indicated, the fact that it is desirable is recognised by the right hon. Gentleman, since he permits legal representation before the Appeals Tribunal. The position, apparently, is going to be that if one desires to appeal, and can afford legal representation before the Appeals Tribunal, one is entitled to it; but if one desires to put forward one's case in the best form possible before the original local tribunal, one cannot do it. I was impressed by what the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) said, in regard to an individual who. suffered from a stutter or something of that sort. In such a case—or, indeed, in any case where a man feels as strongly as he may do when his life or his livelihood may be at stake—he should be; entitled to have legal representation.
I remember that in the last war a suggestion was made that legal representation should be done away with; but the chairmen of all the then appeal tribunals, and I think the present chairman of the conscientious objectors' tribunal, Mr. Fisher, who was then a Minister, all agreed that representation was desirable, and that it affected a great saving of time in the work of the tribunals. While it may be true that comparatively few complaints have occurred so far, the appeals have only been in connection with men of 20 to 24. When the cases of older men, with greater responsibilities, come along, I think there will be a public demand for the right to be represented. If that right is not given, I fear that it will lead inevitably to the feeling that advantage is taken by officials of the ignorance of individuals, and that their elementary rights are being taken away from them. People will possibly lose their faith in judicial bodies, and the rule of law about which we hear so much, and upon which the Constitution rests, may well crumble away.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £,560,010, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance, employment exchange and other services; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army Council and Air Council, of soldiers and airmen; contribution towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; expenses in connection with national service; expenses in connection with persons liable to be registered and called up for military training and for service in the armed forces of the Crown; and sundry services.

CLASS II.

DOMINIONS OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,650, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

7.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Eden): No doubt the Committee would like a brief explanation of the purposes for' which this money is being asked. At the outbreak of war the character and volume of the work of the Dominions Office underwent a very considerable change. I will not explain all the particulars, but I will give one example. The number of telegrams sent from September to the end of the present year, compared with the same period of last year, was three times as great. This has resulted in a certain inevitable increase, though a small one, of the staff, including the higher staff, where owing to the greater responsibility of the work we have now a new post of Deputy Under-Secretary. These additions explain the sum of £150. The actual cost, of course, has been greater, but the savings have set off the rest of the expenditure, and the money for which we are asking is only £150.
The rest is devoted to travelling and incidental expenses which in normal times would be met out of savings. In the main, this expenditure is for the mission of Lord and Lady Willingdon to New Zealand for the centenary celebrations where, as the Committee know, they did most valuable service and received a very warm welcome from the New Zealand Government and people. That is the explanation of the figures, and in the circumstances I hope that the Committee will approve of the Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,650, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: There are several questions that I would like to put to the Secretary of State in regard to the items now before the Committee. The information supplied in the White Paper is not particularly illuminating, and my questions arise because I am in some doubt as to the purposes to which the expenditure is being or has been put. I welcome the continued policy of making grants-in-aid to certain of our Colonial dependencies where they are unable to stand on their own feet and meet certain of the heavy expenses in which they are involved. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will go on strengthening the administration so that more and more the economic resources of these territories are developed, and that as soon as possible these territories can pay their own way. Meanwhile, if certain social service and welfare work is to be done, obviously the Government must continue to finance as liberally as possible the Governments of these dependencies until they are more or less self-supporting. I would like to put questions, first of all, in relation to Somaliland, where I notice that military expenditure to the extent of £30,000 is involved. Various statements have been made, and, although I do not associate myself with them, I would like to have an answer as to whether this expenditure includes any recruitment of British protected subjects in respect of certain services over the frontier?
I notice that in regard to British Honduras there is an increase of £70,000, which is more than double the estimated administrative expenditure. We all recognise the poverty of this particular colony, and one would like to feel that the administration was being strengthened to the degree that it can exploit its economic resources more freely than is the case at the present time. Certain interests seem to have a grip in that colony, but I hope that the money for which the Colonial Office is now asking will be used for developing not only the economic possibilities of the territory, but also for the development of certain social aids in order that the poverty, which is pointed out in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the West Indies, may in some degree be allayed. I would like to know whether part of this sum is for the purpose mentioned in the recommendations of the

Royal Commission, namely, to meet the deficit in administration indicated there?
A sum of £58,000 is called for in respect of Kenya to meet expenditure on military roads, and I ask that some special consideration should be given to the problem of roads in this particular colony, and that, while military considerations are dominant possibly, the economic needs of the local inhabitants are not overlooked altogether, so that these roads may serve a permanent purpose in the development of the colony. In the past, the roads which have been constructed have, in the main, served the interests, I believe, of the European areas. A disproportionate amount of money has been spent in that way and the native areas have, to a degree, been neglected. If these roads are to be constructed, while; it is obvious that military considerations must be paramount, I hope that the ultimate economic needs of the colony, particularly from the point of view of the native peoples themselves, will not be lost sight of when this construction is going on.
Finally, we are making a grant-in-aid to St. Helena towards the expenses of her administration. The poverty of that colony has become proverbial, and one recognises that administration there has to do a great deal before the standard of life of the people can be built up. I believe that a number of very severe economic restrictions are operating there, and that the colony is again in the grip possibly of one or two special interests, but I hope that, small as this sum is, it may be a contribution towards extensive administrative organisation which will put the colony in a much healthier condition. The last report shows that its housing scheme consisted merely of five houses, and that a further two were contemplated. A much more vigorous social policy than that should be pursued, and every effort should be made to bring back health to this colony, which has been neglected for so long. I again welcome the continuance of this policy of grants to assist these territories, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his administration will do all that is humanly possible to induce the local Governments to build up the economic and social life of their communities until they find themselves on a self-supporting basis.

7.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) started off by welcoming the policy of assisting colonial territories, when they have faced deficits in their budgets, by a. system of grants in aid, but urged that we should pursue a policy of wide development of the economic resources of those countries so that eventually they can stand, economically, on their own feet and not be obliged to have recourse to us for grants in aid. In a sentence I may say that that expresses completely the policy of the Government in its administration, not only of the Colonial Development Fund, but in its plans for a wider policy in future. The hon. Member asked four or five specific questions regarding the Supplementary Votes that are being asked for to-day. First, with regard to British Somaliland, he has noted that part of this expenditure is required for military purposes, and he asked whether any of it was being incurred in connection with the recruitment of British protected persons beyond the boundaries of Somaliland. I am not certain whether he had in mind the suggestion which has been made from time to time that some of these British protected persons are being, recruited for service in foreign Forces, but, if he has, I can assure him that no such recruiting is going on inside this territory. This military expenditure is entirely concerned with increasing the efficiency of our own and British defence forces in that territory.
The hon. Member then passed on to British Honduras and expressed the hope that the money we are asking for to-day would be used to help economic development there. The greater part of it is being so used. Something like £50,000 out of £70,000 is on account of unemployment relief works, largely for the building and construction of roads which, of course, will assist the transport system of the country and so be a contribution towards its economic development. A great deal of the rest of the money required is due to the fact that the British Honduras currency is based on the American dollar, and depreciation of sterling in terms of the American dollar has meant that our contribution in pounds in the form of a grant in aid to the territory has had to be increased since the war.
Then he asked about the roads which are being constructed in Kenya and, whilst appreciating that they are military roads and therefore must be constructed so as to serve most efficiently their strict military purposes, he hoped we would not overlook the fact that these roads might also be constructed so as to help the ordinary social amenities and the economic development of the native territories. We must, of course, first pay attention to the strict military requirements, but if we could make them serve other and more peaceful purposes we would do what we could in that direction.
Finally, speaking about St. Helena he referred to the poverty of the island and hoped that this request for an additional grant was an indication that we were doing something to develop the natural resources and social services there. I would say to him that one of the reasons why expenditure has risen in St. Helena is that we have been paying considerable sums to the main industry there—the production of New Zealand hemp. That subsidising of the main industry has been one of the causes of the increased expenditure requiring our assistance, and another cause is the extent of the development of the social services there. I have a little note here on the way in which we are expanding the health, education, housing and certain other services in the colony, but perhaps I need not take the time of the Committee now. I would, however, be most ready to send to the hon. Member a short account of the way in which the five-year development programme for St. Helena is progressing at the present time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid.

CLASS III.

HOME OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and


expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate offices, liquidation expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, contributions towards the expenses of Probation, preparation of plans for a Ministry of Information and a grant in aid of the Central Committee for Refugees.

7.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): As this Vote is for a completely new service, I think perhaps I ought to say a few words in explanation to the Committee. It may have come as something of a surprise to hon. Members, in view of the past policy of the Government in regard to the refugee problem, when my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd February, in a fairly long Written Answer to a Question, that the Government were going to find a sum of £180,000 for the assistance of voluntary organisations which have hitherto borne the entire brunt of the refugee problem. Excluding children, there are about 50,000 refugees in this country at the present time, and, of course, a great proportion of them are in work, such as domestic service. Many others are maintained by relatives, friends, or charitably-minded individuals. But a considerable number, which was largely increased on the outbreak of war, are being maintained by weekly payments made by these voluntary organisations. It is estimated that these organisations have spent, since 1933, over £5,000,000 on this refugee problem, in addition to a further £3,000,000, which is an estimate of the value of hospitality in kind which has been given by private individuals. People of all classes in this country have made their contribution to these funds, and we are satisfied that the Jewish community, in particular, have done everything in their power to alleviate the sufferings of so many members of their own creed or race. On the outbreak of war the situation of these organisations, which was none too good at that time, became very much worse. In the first place, a very large number of domestic servants were thrown out of employment and, furthermore, of course, the war Budget of October made it infinitely harder for these organisations to continue raising funds. By the middle of November their representatives told us that they were spending £60,000 per month and they could not carry on for more than a few weeks longer.
The Government had to consider the consequences of the complete collapse of these voluntary organisations—the consequences for the refugees themselves, the effect on public opinion as regards Jews in this country, and the consequences for the local authorities, which would have been faced with the burden of providing for these refugees. When we investigated the problem, we found that those burdens would have fallen very unequally on local authorities throughout the country. In point of fact a few local authorities in particular places would have had extraordinarily heavy burdens cast upon them, and that would have produced a very difficult situation indeed. Not only on material grounds but on human grounds as well, it was difficult to contemplate the collapse and disintegration of these organisations. They keep in touch with the refugees, and they maintain considerable numbers of them in hostels and so forth, and I do not think the Committee would have contemplated with equanimity the falling on to public assistance of large numbers of aliens, women for the most part, who have no homes and no ties of any kind in this country. We have, therefore, devised a system of aiding these voluntary organisations upon a £ for £ basis. That is to say, for every £1 expended by the voluntary organisations the Government will contribute £1 themselves. That has the dual advantage, that it promotes economy on the one hand, and it does not dry up the springs, of private charity on the other.
To turn to the financial details of the arrangement, the proposal is that in respect of the four months from the outbreak of the war up to the end of December, the Government should contribute the sum of £25,000 per month, that is, £100,000 in all, which I can assure the Committee is substantially less than half the money expended by the voluntary organisations. As far as the period after 1st January is concerned, the Government will find £1 for every £1 expended by the voluntary organisations up to a maximum of £27,000 per month. That arrangement will hold good till the end of June, when, of course, it will have to be subject to review in the light of the situation as it then exists.
As far as the efficiency and economy of these organisations are concerned, a new committee has been constituted represen-


tative of all the organisations involved, and also containing on it independent representatives who have had experience of administration of the social services, and I am pleased to inform the Committee that, as chairman, we have secured the services of Sir Herbert Emerson, whose name is so well known to everyone who has ever given any study to this refugee problem. We hope that the cost will gradually diminish as the refugees find jobs available for them. There is an increasing movement in the direction of better employment in the country, but it has not proceeded anything like as fast as the refugee organisations had hoped, and I am afraid it may still be quite a number of months before the bulk of these homeless and workless refugees are absorbed in the life of the community.

7.37 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I should like to pay tribute to the sympathetic and understanding work of the Under-Secretary of State. Of course, the Home Secretary must share that distinction, but I think the hon. Gentleman has applied his mind and tried to understand and be sympathetic to one of the most difficult and most vitally important problems directly associated with the great war. It is a satisfactory contrast in this home of civilisation that the Government, in the middle of a great war, can find money for this work of social service for refugees who have been driven out of their homeland by the brutal, cruel and uncivilised conduct of the government with which we are now struggling. It is not inappropriate that we should spend a few minutes to remind ourselves what is the cause which makes it necessary for the taxpayer to find this comparatively small sum. It is a difficult problem. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. You could not possibly put this burden on local authorities without causing friction, and it might even bring about bad blood and cause an anti-alien feeling—the very thing that we want to avoid. It is right and proper that the Government should find this money rather than have it found by the local rates. From all I hear, it is the greatest wish of these people to get self-respect by becoming breadwinners, earning their keep by employment, and the sooner they get the opportunity the better for themselves and the better for the nation as a whole.
As long as we have a million and a quarter unemployed, the Ministry of Labour has to go slow and exercise tact, but I know that many of these people have exceptional skill which could be exploited in the national interest in the time of war. I hope that as the need for labour expands—and if we are to put the full weight of our energy into the conduct of the war the need for labour ought to expand—every encouragement should be given with the co-operation of the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour, to enable these men to find useful, productive employment in their own interest and in that of the community as a whole. That would be far better than finding the money from the taxpayer. I think the Government are entitled to the support of all parties in the House in asking for this sum. The idea of £ for £ is a good one. It means that charity is not dried up but encouraged by the action of the State.

7.41 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I also begin by saying how much we appreciate the care and attention which the Under-Secretary of State has given to this subject during the time he has been in his office. The Home Office itself has been most helpful and most thoughtful, and has taken a much more liberal view of the whole problem than is generally found on the Front Bench. I think this is an occasion when we are bound to point out, not only to the people of this country but to the world as a whole, what we have done for this particular form of charity. The figures given in an answer by the Home Secretary are most striking. Since this persecution began charitable organisations in this country, by no means all Jewish, have found £5,000,000. It has probably come out of the taxpayer's pocket, but it would have had to come out of the taxpayer's pocket if it had not been found by voluntary effort. In addition there is £3,000,000, which, I think, is a very small and modest measure of what has actually been done by the people of this country.
There have been literally hundreds of organisations in Great Britain collecting funds locally and looking after half a dozen or 20 refugees, all done simply through a spirit of Christian charity, by no means confined to any particular denomination. It is one of the most striking contributions that I can remember this country having made towards


righting an injustice. We have often found money for earthquakes, but for seven years we have been doing our best to right a monstrous and inhuman injustice inflicted by Germany upon people who have committed no crime. Do not let us forget that not only this £180,000, which is the taxpayer's contribution, but the whole of this sum has been blackmailed out of the people of this country by Hitler. He has robbed these people of everything they had, driven them into other countries, and made those countries which were decent enough to receive them pay the bill. I do not think there has been a parallel to it in the history of mankind.
I could wish that the Under-Secretary had given us a little more information as to the extent of the problem and the numbers. I know that refugees have been allowed to re-emigrate mostly to America; and America has also done extremely well in helping these victims of injustice. But still there must be now, I judge, quite 50,000 left in this country. A great many of these will be going sooner or later to the Colonies or to America. They will cease to be a problem. We must count on at least 40,000 remaining in this country. Here we are making some sort of preparation for looking after some of these people. Of that 40,000, probably at least three-quarters will get work sooner or later, and there is then the residuum of people over 55, not to mention children who will grow up into useful citizens, who will have to be looked after, and, unfortunately, a certain number of wasters who, so long as they can be kept at a rate of £5 per month, would prefer to be kept by charity rather than do manual work. That is the problem with which the Government and the Jewish and other aid societies are faced. Most of those who have already got work are helping this country, but the others, the old and the wasters, will be a dead weight unless we can improve matters. I gather that there are 43,000 who are now set free with "C" certificates to get work, and about 8,000 who have only "B" certificates, and cannot move more than five miles away and are under constant police supervision.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Member is now getting to what are Home Office matters and are not

connected with the Vote under discussion.

Colonel Wedgwood: We are voting £27,000 per month in order to solve this problem. That is not an adequate sum to meet the cost of this experiment unless steps are taken to see that every one of these people has an opportunity to get work. The best solution of this problem is not charity or a subvention from the taxpayer, but that they should get work and produce wealth for the country. Ethically and morally we ought to contemplate getting rid of this £27,000 subsidy and seeing that the whole of these refugees are merged in the ordinary population of the country. We shall not have succeeded in solving the problem until they are amalgamated, and one of the natural ways is that they should come under the unemployment insurance like ordinary English people in the same position. It is true that that would come heavily on a place like Hampstead, but I think Hampstead can better bear it than most districts. The important thing is that they should be treated as though they were ordinary citizens of this country to be looked after by the same machinery. That is the end at which we shall have to aim, and I think it should be made clear to these people as soon as possible that that is the object of the Government. The tribunal has dealt with this problem extremely wisely. Nearly everybody has been passed for work, and if we can get these refugees trusted and allowed to find work, we shall have done much more to solve this problem than by voting £27,000 per month.
I would urge the Government to say something to the refugees themselves. I think we are leaving the direction of the refugees too much in the hands of charitable organisations. I think they ought to be told by the Government that they are on their way to becoming British citizens, that they must fit themselves into the community, that they must cease to think of some blessed time when they will be able to return to Vienna and Berlin, that they must become British in sympathy and British in outlook. There is too much talking in German and reading of German. If these people are to become good British citizens, they must try to understand English people, to become part of this country, and then they will amalgamate and become in due


course, when the seven years are up, excellent citizens of this country. Meanwhile, the Government have done well to assist the charitable organisations, which would otherwise have gone bankrupt, for they could not possibly have faced the problem during war. I hope they will be seen through by this scheme, and I hope that the scheme will be used to bring constant pressure upon the organisations to cease giving assistance to undeserving cases, to help those who wish to work to get work, and to educate them to become British in every sense of the term.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think it must be a source of gratification to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary that in all parts of the Committee there is appreciation of this Vote and the spirit which has prompted it, the wisdom and sympathy shown by the Home Office in dealing with this extremely difficult problem, and the great care, sympathy and interest which have been shown by the Under-Secretary in handling it. One or two hon. Members have said that we ought to congratulate ourselves upon doing so much at such a time as the present. Of course, we ought to be thankful that this is being done, but we should be making a great mistake if we thought of this country as taking the lead in this matter. France has been bearing a far heavier burden for a longer time. In France, they have Spanish, German and Polish refugees, and the numbers there and the cost to the French State are immensely greater than in this country. When one thinks of poorer and smaller countries, such as Hungary and Rumania, and realise what they are doing in maintaining refugees for whose presence they have no responsibility, one cannot help feeling that we have no right to congratulate ourselves too much on the efforts we are making.
We have also to remember that before the State intervened, the voluntary societies had been working at the difficult task for a long time, and that the State came forward at the last moment when this private effort was on the point of breaking down. I am grateful to the Government for having taken this step, which I think was essential, but we must not forget the immense effort that has

been made by voluntary organisations and private individuals in dealing with this problem, in some cases for years, since these distressed people began to come into this country as a result of injustice and wrong elsewhere. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will make a little clearer the arrangement that is to be made with regard to the voluntary organisations. I hope that an attempt will be made by the Government to see that the committees in the country which have in some cases expended a great deal of time, thought, and money, will get their share of the payment of £100,000 for past expenses. I realise that the greater part of the sum must naturally go to the great central organisations, but the local committees, which have often taken charge of a considerable number of cases, have incurred special expenses, and they also are in need of help. The personal friendship and guidance that can be given through such organisations is of immense value at a time like the present, when it is not merely money that is wanted by the refugees, but even more, human sympathy and friendship, which give to them the feeling that they are being treated as fellow men, and not simply as units, mechanically given a dole and left with that.
I believe the result of this grant will be a continuation of this work which will be of great value, and I hope that the Government will eventually make it unnecessary for grants to be made in the future by carrying out the suggestions that have already been made. We ought to see that a great many of these people who want to work and have the ability to do so are given an opportunity. I do not believe that if they were allowed to work it would take work away from British subjects; rather the reverse. We ought also to look forward to the acquisition of British citizenship by refugee children who have come into this country at an early age and are being trained in British schools, and who in a few years time will have been five, six or seven years in this country, and in some cases will hardly remember the country of their birth, and will have no tie of sentiment binding them to it. They will make admirable citizens of the British Commonwealth, in this country or overseas. We ought to encourage a prospect of that sort.

7.57 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I am in a somewhat delicate position in speaking on this subject, because I am not only chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee which is responsible for dealing with these refugees, but I am the British Government representative on it. I had not intended to take part in the Debate, but I felt that I ought to correct one or two impressions that might have been created by the speeches that have been made. In the first place, it is inaccurate to say, as was said by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) that this country has not done as much as some other countries as far as this category of refugees is concerned. On the contrary, the record of this country is a most excellent one.

Mr. Harvey: I did not refer to this category of refugees alone. I was speaking of refugees in general. I had in mind the immense number of Spanish refugees, and not merely the German refugees.

Earl Winterton: I am afraid it would not be in order for me to deal with that point, as we are not discussing Spanish refugees, but this particular category of refugees. With regard to them, it may interest the Committee to know that last year the intake into this country over a period was greater than it was even in the case of the United States. More of them came into this country than went into the United States. There is another point to which I want to refer. It is a profound mistake to suppose that all the people who will be beneficiaries under this Vote are going to remain permanently in this country. That is something which has not been said either by the Undersecretary or by anybody else, and I think it is important that it should be said, because outside the House there is criticism of the fact that Parliament is voting a large sum of money for refugees which ought to be given to British citizens. I do not agree with the criticism, and in view of my position I do not want to discuss that aspect now. I simply want to make clear that a great many of these people are what are called temporary migrants in transit waiting to go overseas to the United States, when they can do so under the quota, to the Dominions, or elsewhere. I hope that the effect of this Debate on most of these people will not be to encourage them to

remain here if they can get better positions overseas.
I do not altogether agree with previous speakers that it is necessary to encourage a lot of refugees to settle in this country. The attitude of the committee over which I have the honour to preside is that it is desirable that these people should be spread over as wide an area as possible, and any of them who can go to the United States, and get work there, will probably find opportunities greater than those which are available in this country. That ought to be made clear, because it is a very important point of principle. Criticism outside Parliament has been directed against the Government on the ground that large sums are being spent in order to keep refugees permanently in this country. That is not the intention of the Vote at all. It is to assist those who are in temporary difficulties until they can either find employment here if eventually given naturalisation, or until they get on to the American quota or go in any other way to other parts of the world.
I wish to pay my tribute to what the Government have done and also to say that I am very glad that Sir Herbert Emerson, the League High Commissioner for Refugees and also Director of the committee over which I preside, has consented to be chairman of this new committee. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that Sir Herbert, in his capacity as Director of the Inter-Governmental Committee, has done a great deal to bring about the success of the negotiations between the Government and the refugee organisations which has resulted in this Vote.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: In reference to what has been said by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I would point out that this money is available for refugees in a very technical sense. I am not clear, for instance, whether Czechs are regarded as refugees for this purpose or can benefit from this assistance?

Colonel Wedgwood: No.

Mr. Roberts: I thought not. Of course there are other large categories of refugees. I suppose that Poles, for instance, come under this and that Spaniards do not. Therefore, in considering the whole refugee question which


has arisen in the last few years, it is only right to realise that some other countries have borne a much greater burden than this country. I wish to associate myself with the congratulations which have been offered to the Under-Secretary and the Department on the way in which this problem has been handled. I have one request to make—that in dealing with the question of employment, a little more consideration should be given to professional and intellectual capacity. If a man has capital it is easy for him to obtain a permit to work in this country. In my part of the North of England we are much beholden to the many refugees who have started large industries there, employing numbers of English people. It is with the greatest difficulty, however, that those firms can get a permit to employ even one person of their own nationality. After all, we are getting the benefit of their capacity and skill and I would ask the Home Office to be a little more lenient in granting permits to people who have not been so fortunate as to get their capital out of Germany or whatever other country they may have come from.
It is much easier now, but the position still is that a person must have capital. Of course if he is lucky enough to belong to a trade in which there is a shortage of workers in this country he is all right but the position is exceedingly difficult at the present time for the professional or intellectual worker who is without other capital than his qualifications. May I suggest that brains should be regarded as being as valuable to the country as either capital or brawn? It is a short-sighted policy to test whether a man should be employed or not simply on the consideration that some British subject might possibly be qualified on paper to do that particular work. One cannot judge doctors or followers of other professional and intellectual occupations on that basis, and therefore I hope the Home Office will be a little more lenient in granting permits.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with this problem of refugees ever since he undertook the duties of his present office. I feel that by this policy the Government have done much to prevent the growth of anti-alien feeling in this country. I would welcome

from the Under-Secretary a little more information as to the number of people concerned and whether that number is likely to decline as the result of migration to the United States or the Colonies. I should also like to know whether there is Treasury representation on the committee of which Sir Herbert Emerson is to be chairman. I feel that in dealing with this problem we have a right to expect that the refugees will support one another to the maximum extent of which they are capable and that there should be support from relatives wherever possible. I feel too that in the administration of the funds placed at the disposal of the voluntary organisations, the treatment given to these people—who are, I agree, in most cases very deserving—should not be more favourable than that which is accorded to members of our own race and blood who are suffering from misfortune in some other way. I approve of and welcome the grant but I hope that no hasty steps will be taken in the direction of treating these people as permanent residents here. I hope many of them will pass overseas and that at a later date conditions will prevail in Germany and Austria under which they will be able to return to the country which gave them birth and where their earlier and happier associations remain.

Sir Henry Fildes: With regard to the new appointment which has been indicated, may I ask whether there is any salary attached to the office or whether it is a voluntary contribution to the solution of this difficulty?

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I wish to thank the Committee for the congratulatory and complimentary references which have been made to my right hon. Friend and myself in connection with this Vote. I should say that I found this sympathetic policy already in full operation when I went to the Home Office in April last. As regards employment and emigration, I had intended to give the Committee more information in my opening remarks, but I purposely cut short my speech as I understood that the Committee desired to proceed to other business. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is quite right in emphasising the fact that a large proportion of these refugees are in this country on a temporary basis. As long as the employment situation remains what it is to-day,


we shall certainly not do anything to discourage the transference of these refugees to countries of ultimate settlement outside, and I may inform the Committee that, in spite of all the difficulties in the way of emigration, no fewer than 1,000 refugees left these shores between the outbreak of war in September and the end of December last. It is estimated that a further 5,000 will leave these shores in the period between January and June of this year.
So far as employment is concerned there is, of course, a general desire to make use of the services of as many of these refugees as possible. We did, in fact, bring into operation in November last an Order which very much simplified the procedure so far as employment of aliens is concerned, and as a result quite a number of aliens have been placed in jobs through the employment exchanges. We are still faced with the difficulty that employment in the country has not improved as quickly as we would wish, but at the same time we hope that when an improvement comes we shall be able to absorb, at any rate temporarily, quite a large number of refugees at present being maintained through the agency of these voluntary organisations. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) asked me a question. I am afraid I have not the answer here but I will communicate it to him.

Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that none of this particular category of refugees, for whom this Vote is intended, have come in since the beginning of the war, so that the emigration overseas represents a net reduction?

Mr. Peake: Our policy at the outbreak of war was to stop all refugees and other immigration into this country. We have, however, modified that policy to the small extent that, where the wife or the young children of a refugee, already here, had reached a neutral or an allied country before the outbreak of war, we have for the purpose of bringing the family together again, granted permission in exceptional cases for the family to come to this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £180,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st

day of March 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and the subordinate offices, liquidation expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, contributions towards the expenses of probation, preparation of plans for a Ministry of Information and a Grant-in-Aid of the Central Committee for Refugees.

CLASS VI.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1940, for guarantees given after consultation with the Export Guarantees Advisory Council and for the salaries and expenses of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The reason why I have to appear to-day to ask for this Supplementary grant is the fact that this year for the first time in its history the Export Credits Guarantee Department's income from premiums is not expected to be sufficient to defray the expenses of the Department and the claims likely to fall upon it. The causes are twofold. In the first place the premium income is unlikely, so far as we can judge at present, to come up to the figure we had originally anticipated. Our business is extremely varied and some business is more profitable than others. This year, unfortunately, although the total turnover of the Department so far is substantially in excess of that for the corresponding period last year, the amount of more profitable business included in the turnover is smaller and the amount of less profitable business is greater. Therefore we anticipate that the premium income will not be as great as we had estimated.
On the other side we have agreed, largely in order to try and help our exporters, to meet claims falling due as a result of the outbreak of war, and more particularly as a result of the invasion of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia by Germany. The amount that we are providing this year will not suffice for the whole of the claims, and substantial sums will fall due to be paid next year. Those sums will, of course, be included in the Estimate which in due course will be laid before the House. Those are the chief reasons for the Supplementary Estimate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exing £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for guarantees given after consultation with the Export Guarantees Advisory Council and for the salaries and expenses of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

CLASS VII.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £308,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain housing estates.

CLASS I.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid to the Kitchen Committee.

SECRET SERVICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, of His Majesty's foreign and other secret services.

CLASS III.

LAND REGISTRY.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the office of Land Registry.

MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL EXPENSES.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,770, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for certain miscellaneous legal expenses, for the salaries and expenses of arbitrators, etc., in connection with the acquisition of land, for grants in aid of the expenses of the Law Society and of the Solicitors' Discipline (Scotland) Committee, and for the expenses of Tribunals established in connection with Defence Compensation.

CLASS VII.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £90,450, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in respect of property in the occupation of the Crown for the public service, and for rates on buildings occupied by representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and for the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a grant in aid of the expenses of the London Fire Brigade.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of oats subsidy.)

8.21 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out "amendments," and to insert "amendment."
The next Amendment on the Paper—in line 16, to leave out paragraph (b)—is, of course, linked with this. I am not sure that we are very concerned about whether these Amendments are rejected or not, but, since paragraph (b) removes any limitation upon the amount of oats that may be produced to qualify for the subsidy, that implies, at least, that there ought to be not only more land available for sowing with oats, but seed oats to sow. I move the Amendment in order to get some statement from the Minister, as to whether seed oats are likely to be available for those who wish to sow them. We know that there is a great shortage of feeding-stuffs, and that sheep and pigs


are being killed off, or have died off, all over the country, because of the absence of feeding-stuffs. Because of that, many farmers who have oats available, and would have sold them in other circumstances, prefer to keep them for feeding-stuffs, and, because there happens to be no control of prices, some who are willing to sell are asking such a high price that sowers are unwilling to purchase from them. Unless the Minister of Agriculture, in association with the Minister of Food, takes a very keen line on this, we shall find large areas being ploughed up, and the very cereal that it is desired to have sown will not be available next season.
I do not expect that we shall get this Amendment accepted, and we have no desire to delete paragraph (b), but we are very anxious to hear what the two Government Departments are doing to ensure that seed oats will be made available. I know that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food have said that they are relying on the good will of merchants to do the right thing. There are occasions when we can rely upon the good will of sections of the community, but I am not sure that in war-time we can place much reliance on the spoken word of an interested party, particularly if higher profits can be obtained by not fulfilling a promise. We are anxious that, as far as seed oats are available, they shall be, as nearly as possible, equitably distributed, and that the price in this uncontrolled period shall not be allowed to reach such a point that farmers are denied the privilege of making such purchases as they require for newly-ploughed land.

8.26 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): The hon. Member did not tell me that he was going to raise this question, so I cannot give the latest information, as I should have liked to do, from the seed front; but he knows that, since the beginning of the war, we have had our seeds advisory committee in operation, consisting of experts, growers, merchants, and everybody concerned with the trade. I have no doubt that we shall be able to provide the necessary seeds for the farmers to sow their increased acreage. That is the information we have received from these people, who ought to know. As for prices, I have

explained to the House before that the merchants have given us an undertaking that, if there are any temporary shortages in any districts, owing to factors which cannot be foreseen at present, they will, on representations being made to them, see that sufficient supplies are sent to those areas to enable a fair price to be charged. In addition, as I have told the House, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food and I have obtained a certain quantity of seed oats from overseas, which have been tested, and which will grow. We have taken every step which is open to us to ensure that these supplies will be there when required, at as reasonable a price as we can secure.

Mr. T. Williams: I am very glad to know that there are supplies available, but can we take it that, should those with oats for sale attempt to exploit the shortage position, the Government will not hesitate to use the powers at their command to fix a price for seed oats, as they have done for feeding oats?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Naturally, we shall watch this position very carefully; but there is a danger that if you arbitrarily fix your price for seed oats, you will stop the whole flow of seed oats to the growers. When there was a suggestion that the price should be fixed, that is what happened; and it produced what might have been a very awkward situation. That, I want to avoid. I want to ensure that the farmers get oats at a reasonable price, and yet that we do not stop the flow of oats to the market.

Colonel Burton: Is the assurance which my right hon. and gallant Friend has received in regard to seed oats given by the same experts as caused him to mislead the people of this country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I would ask the Minister to be a little more specific. He said that a suggestion was made about controlling these oats; it went further than that. It emanated, apparently, from the Ministry of Food that control should be exercised. Apparently the Minister thought otherwise, and he decided that they should not be controlled. The farmer is, apparently, to be left in a position in which this seed matter is being watched with the very greatest care by


the Ministry. How will that ensure to the farmer that a supply of seed oats will be forthcoming? Price is of vital importance, but even more important is it that the seed should actually be there. Can the Minister assure the House that the oats are available and that they will be there when required? Those who have seed oats have had experience of a shortage of feeding stuffs, and even if they feel that they have a surplus stock of oats that they can part with to their neighbours or to anybody else, they are loath to do so lest there should be that shortage of feeding stuffs, in which case they could not feed their own animals.
What is to be the position in that matter? It is not good enough to say to the House that the matter will be wached. Already we have lost, so far as ploughing is concerned, about eight weeks. In my own county the contractors would have ploughed ordinarily about 200 acres, but less than six acres have been ploughed. That means that the time left for us for sowing is very short indeed. What assurance have those farmers that, if they go on with their ploughing, the seed will be there? It is not enough to say, "I shall watch it. I hope that you will get it at a reasonable price." Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the question which was put just now from the Opposition Front Bench? Will he, if the occasion arises, exercise his powers to see that the oats are forthcoming and will be in the possession of farmers for sowing? Will he exercise those powers and not wait? Time is of vital importance in this matter.

8.34 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Hon. Members have not suggested what form action should take. [An Hon. Member: "Control."] I have apologised for not being able to give the latest information. I did not know that this question was to be put. The position, I understood, was that the merchants had large stocks in hand but that orders were not coming through. If my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken, or the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) would put down a Question, I would be able to give the very latest information on the matter. I can give hon. Members the assurance that we are taking all the necessary steps, but we do not want to go into the danger of stopping the entire flow. The hon.

Member has recognised that there is that danger. If the Question is put down I will try to give the House the very latest information.

Mr. T. Williams: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 23.—(Provisions as to requisitioned land.)

8.35 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 16, line 16, to leave out from "cultivated," to the end of line 17, and to insert:
so as to produce the maximum supply of food.
I would preface my remarks by saying how very pleased we are to see the Minister of Agriculture here to-day. We missed him very much on the Committee stage, and we hope that he is now restored to health. The Clause which I am proposing to amend deals with the powers of the Minister and of the war agricultural executive committees to take over derelict land. Much of the land of this country could produce more than it is doing at the present time, but the very worst land of all needs to be taken over and controlled by the Minister through the county committees. The reasons set out in Clause 23 (1) will give the Minister sufficient power to take over what land he might wish, to take over.
"The rules of good husbandry," which words I propose to leave out, are denned in the Act of 1923, and a procedure has been controlled by them by which tenants could be removed without possession, if they were not farming in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. I would direct the attention of the House to the way in which good husbandry is denned in the Act of 1923. Some of the words used are these:
The maintenance of the land (whether arable meadow, or pasture), clean and in a good state of cultivation and fertility, and in good condition.
That is a very wide definition, I agree. It would appear that if any land was not in good condition the Minister would, under the words as they stand in the Clause, have power to take it over; but there are other words which seem to limit his power very considerably. For instance, there are these:


Such rules of good husbandry as are generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood as the holding in respect of which the expression is to be applied.
That puts a very different light on the matter. It suggests that any market price generally recognised in the neighbourhood would be adequate, and that the standard of farming is to be judged by that which is generally accepted and recognised in the district concerned. I am doubtful whether such a definition would give the Minister the power which he ought to have to take over the very worst land, which has not been cultivated or is absolutely neglected and derelict, owing perhaps to bad drains. The field drains may have been neglected or the watercourses not cleaned out.
If the best use is to be made of a great deal of the land of this country which is much under-cultivated at the present time, I wonder whether there ought not to be a very much wider definition; for instance, down land in the South of England or semi-hilly land in Wales or Scotland, or some of the land in Suffolk. Do the rules of good husbandry provide for taking over such land which with modern methods of cultivation might contribute far more than it is doing at the present time to the total production of British farming? I wonder whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not limiting himself unnecessarily in accepting the definition which exists at present. Of course, these powers will have to be used with discretion. The words which I suggest are very wide, I admit, in order to facilitate the maximum supply of food. But surely that is the object of this Clause and is the underlying object of the whole of this Bill. The owner or the tenant concerned is fully able to put his case to the local committee if he feels he is suffering an injustice in having this land taken. In my opinion there may be cases where for various purposes it would be desirable to have a wider definition.
Lastly, I must say that I can think of instances under the 1923 Act where farmers have been farming very much below the existing standard for the neighbourhood and against whom the Sections in the 1923 Act have been invoked and who nevertheless have been adjudged to be safeguarded under this Clause. I can think of a case of a landowner who gave notice to his tenant to

quit because the farm was in a scandalously bad state. The tenant appealed to the agricultural committee of the county council, which I think is the proper procedure, and the agricultural committee of the county council on the definition given in the Act of the rules of good husbandry maintained his position and ruled against the owner. I would like to ask whether in fact the procedure under this Section in the 1923 Act which is now to be used by the Minister himself has proved in practice to be adequate in order to remove tenants who have obviously neglected their land and on whose land the production is far below that which could be obtained with a good tenant and with the expenditure of a reasonable amount of capital.

Mr. Horabin: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.44 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The difficulty I find in accepting this Amendment is how to define the meaning of "so as to produce the maximum supply of food." That is an extremely wide definition and, as the hon. Member has said, one can see that there might be a ridiculous example. For instance, one may say to any farmer, "If you have this field under intensive cultivation for growing things like cabbages, that would be producing the maximum amount of food." It would have to be used with such discretion that I think in practice one would have to go back to the old practice of going by the rules of good husbandry. I am satisfied that these rules of good husbandry, as they are understood in the country, will in fact cover the cases which we have in mind. Of course, this has also to be read in conjunction with the orders which county committees can give to individual farmers and the powers which they have under other regulations. I think we would get into tremendous trouble if the words suggested were in fact put in. Therefore I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not sure whether the words of the hon. Member would be more effective than the words in the Clause as it now stands. I am more concerned to know that the district committees of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will interpret the 1923 Act as they


should do, whether the next-door farmer is friendly or otherwise. I merely rise to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, according to experience already gained, he feels that the district committees are really fulfilling their functions with regard to land which is not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. We know, broadly speaking, what the intention and purpose of these words are, but I am rather doubtful, after a reply given, I think, by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Secretary of State for Scotland when a direct question was put to him a week or so ago. He was asked how many acres of land have been taken over under the terms of what was then Clause 22, and he told us it was about 6,000 acres throughout the country. That is a very small area. Of those 6,000 acres there may very well be some building land, some park land, and the remainder may not be cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. At best it is a very small area.
I know that the war agricultural executives have not been in existence long and have not had an opportunity to examine thoroughly and give effect to the demand in Clause 23 as it now Stands. I do not wish to delay the Debate but I would like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell the House whether he is still satisfied that four farmers and landowners appointed from area A and operating within Area A will exercise the powers invested in them by the war agricultural executive or whether, instead of leaving the whole of this duty exclusively in the hands of four farmers drawn from this rural area to operate only in that area, where presumably they are all very friendly farmers one with the other, it might not have been better to have a fifth person on that district committee who would have been able to exercise, shall I say, influence over the other four. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that the five of them would be more effective as the county agricultural executive agents than the four local farmers operating within their own district? I know they have not had a long period in which to see what they are going to do, but I wonder whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has any information at all which satisfies him that this function is being positively carried out.

8.50 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: If I may say a word by leave of the House, I think the point is this. These county war agricultural committees are composed of absolutely independent people who can exercise their judgment—I am taking the analogy of the county councils—and one need have no fear with regard to that. All the information I have from the committees is that these men are going into this job with the desire to get extra production and with exactly the right spirit. I am certain that they will, as far as is humanly possible, show no favour to their neighbours. Indeed, I think it will be found that they will come down on their neighbours like a ton of bricks unless they do their job properly. I am satisfied from all the information I can get that they are carrying on their job in the right spirit.

Mr. Roberts: In view of what the Minister has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): Mr. Ridley.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether the Amendment in the name of my two hon. Friends, in page 16, line 25, to leave out "three" and to insert "ten," is not to be called? As far as we can discover it is completely new matter, is strictly within the confines of the Money Resolution, and would in no way extend the Bill or involve finance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in order because it would extend the time.

Mr. Williams: It provides for an extension of time during which the: Government or the tenant of the Government can retain possession of land taken over which had not been or was not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. The Amendment seeks to extend the time during which the Government can retain possession of the land from three years to 10, but that in no way involves extra expenditure and to that extent does not cut across the Money Resolution.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that it is not a question of getting beyond the Money Resolution, but a question of what is permissible on Report. The Amendment might have


been in order on the Committee stage, but it is not in order on the Report stage.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I should like to be clear about this so that we may be guided on future occasions. This seems to me somewhat of a precedent. If it is merely a case of extension of time which involves no further charge to the taxpayer, and if the time is not without the long Title of the Bill, I do not understand why it is not in order to move an Amendment to that effect on Report.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not clear as to the actual facts. The result of this Amendment would be to increase the charge, but not beyond what is permitted by the Resolution. That does not matter on the Committee stage. On the Report stage, however, no increased charge can be moved in an Amendment although it is within the Resolution. There is the difference between the Report stage and the Committee stage.

CLAUSE 25.—(Expenses of Minister in providing goods and services required for agriculture.)

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, in page 18, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(2) Any arrangements made under this Section shall be in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister and laid before Parliament.
I join with the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) in welcoming the return of the Minister of Apiculture. I observe that automatically there have disappeared from the Treasury Bench the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Commissioner of Works. I do not think anybody who was here through the Second Reading or the two days of Committee will blame them for going. Added to my regret at the absence of the Minister is a regret that, however carefully he may read the Official Report of these three days, he cannot recapture the warmth of some of the debates and the intensity of feeling that ran through the discussions on some of the Amendments. I am moving my Amendment because of the development, on the Committee stage in connection with Clause 25, of what I can only describe as a remarkable situation. The Committee had before it the terms of the Clause. The explanatory memorandum referring to the Clause talks about a

scheme for the purpose of operating the Clause. One or two hon. Members of the Committee that night had in their possession the terms of the draft scheme as it had been circulated by the Minister to war agricultural committees. The Clause was public, but the draft scheme was private, and no Member of the Committee on Thursday night, reading the provisions of the Clause, could have had any idea of the kind of provisions, stipulations, reservations and restrictions that were within the provisional scheme circulated by the Minister.
Those provisions are in some important respects perfectly astounding and make it, therefore, a matter of first-class importance. The object of my Amendment is to see that Parliament has complete control over any scheme which is submitted by the Minister. From the provisions of the Clause and in the absence of knowledge of the proposed scheme, Members of the Committee were entitled to assume that any farmer needing the kind of credit facilities described in the Clause could have them if he satisfied a committee. The scheme, however, says that before approving an application a committee would need to be satisfied that the facilities are necessary in order to enable the farmers to comply with the orders or directions of the committee. That is a kind of restriction that Members of the Committee last Thursday, in the absence of this draft, could not possibly have contemplated.
Two things are obvious. The first is that only a very limited number of farmers are to benefit from these credit facilities, that is, the limited number who operate under a compulsory ploughing-up order, and that limited number will benefit only to the extent of the small acreage which is ploughed up under a compulsory order. No farmer who is not covered by a ploughing-up order can have a credit, no matter how good a farmer or how credit-worthy he may be, or how desirable it is in the public interest that he should have credit facilities. A second restriction, which is no less astounding, is that no farmer can derive any help from the scheme except for the small area of land ploughed up under a compulsory order which may be totally insufficient in the public interest. It may be imperative that he should have wider credit facilities, but the scheme restricts the amount of


credit he may obtain. This scheme, with its meticulous restrictions, makes the general character of the Clause—I hate to use the phrase but I can think of nothing more accurate to interpret what is in my mind—almost like a fraudulent prospectus.
There is another restriction of an important character. The scheme refers to a certain amount, but it does not say how much. The Secretary of State for Scotland talked about £50, but the First Commissioner of Works was a little more extravagant and went as far as £70. If the Debate had gone on to the next day the sum might have reached £120 or £130. But the scheme says a certain amount; it has about it a very non-delightful indifference. In any case, only a very small proportion of that small proportion of farmers normally entitled to have credit facilities provided by the Clause will benefit. Before they can go to the county war agricultural committee with an application they have to prove abundantly that they cannot get credit anywhere else; they have to prove beyond question that they are not credit-worthy. They have to present their non-credit-worthy character to the county war agricultural committee, and having proved that they are so non-credit-worthy, that no one will give them any credit at all, they expect to get some credit out of a hard-headed county war agricultural committee.
It is obvious that the general provisions of the Clause have no relation at all to the meticulous, restricted and reserved provision of the provisional scheme itself. For the reasons I have stated, a small number of farmers will get a limited amount of credit as a result of a very difficult provision through which the farmer has to struggle in order to get any kind of credit facilities. He has to prove, as I say, that no one will lend him anything, and then hardly expect that the county war agricultural committee will lend him something. I suggest that it really makes the scheme a complete muddle, and the Minister of Agriculture ought to say to-night that this provisional scheme has been withdrawn in the light of the previous Committee discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but I understand the argument which he is adducing is for the purpose of showing

that any scheme of this kind ought to be laid upon the Table of the House. The hon. Member must not go too much into the details of the particular scheme.

Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that I have trespassed a little further than I ought to have done, but I will conclude by expressing the hope that, in the light of the criticism addressed to it, the Minister will withdraw the provisional scheme and lay on the Table of the House a scheme which will be more likely to meet with general approval.

Mr. Windsor: I beg to Second the Amendment.

9.4 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I feel that the House would have been in a very much easier position when it first examined this Clause had hon. Members been supplied with the instructions which were to be issued to county war agricultural committees. To discuss this Clause merely after reading it, would, I think, mean that anyone would be very contented with it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must draw the attention of the hon. Lady to the Ruling which I gave just now. This is not a question upon which she can discuss the particular Clause to which she has referred. We are now confined entirely to the question of the Amendment that
Any arrangements made under this Section shall be in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister and laid before Parliament.

Sir Irving Albery: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I respectfully submit to you that the hon. Lady surely would be in order, in not approving of the Amendment or of approving of it, in saying whether she is satisfied with the Clause in its present form or not? If the hon. Lady thinks that the Clause is adequate as it is, and it is not necessary to lay regulations upon the Table, surely she is entitled to express her opinion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have given my Ruling, but I am not quite sure whether I understand the hon. Member's point. It may be that I misunderstood what the hon. Lady was intending to say, but I must ask her at any rate to observe my Ruling, that the Debate must be strictly confined to the words of the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Tate: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and, although it is as difficult as dancing on a tight rope, I will endeavour to discuss the Amendment without going outside the rules of order. I feel confident that had hon. Members seen the instructions to be given to county war agricultural committees, they would never have approved the high rate of percentage to be asked from farmers, nor would they ever have approved of the stringent conditions which impose upon farmers an obligation to repay the whole of their loan in as short a period as 12 months, with the penalty, where the money was not repaid, that it would be deducted from their milk cheque or their wheat cheque. We support this Amendment in order to avoid the possibility of farmers being called upon to pay a usurious rate of interest for a short term loan. We all imagined that at the most they would be called upon to pay a commercial rate of interest, and 5 per cent. is not a commercial rate of interest on so fully secured a short-term loan.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has scarcely succeeded in keeping within the rule of Order.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend for reasons that are obviously similar to those of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). I think that one must give reasons for supporting such an Amendment, and those reasons emerged during the Debate on Clause 24 as it then was. On that occasion we found ourselves confronted with a Clause under which certain things might be done, but there was not a Member of the Committee who had the slightest knowledge of what those things were. One hon. Member quoted from a typewritten document and made reference to a certain rate of interest. A Minister referred to a maximum of £50, and another Minister mentioned £70, and there was not an hon. Member sitting in the Committee who had the slightest knowledge of what Clause 24 was likely to do. It is true that we had explanations from the Secretary of State for Scotland and from the First Commissioner of Works, but they were wholly unsatisfactory to the Committee. Therefore what the Committee then felt, we still feel, namely, that there is a case for the provision of goods and services for these

farmers who require them. The House is willing to pass the particular Clause, but we want to know the meaning and purport of the Clause once it is embodied in the Bill. Therefore, we say that any scheme for the provision of goods and services at 5 per cent. or less on a sum of £50, £70, £120, or whatever it may be, should be embodied in an Order to be laid upon the Table of this House, so that at least hon. Members and such agriculturists who may take advantage of this meaning will know exactly the full import and purport of Clause 25. As it is now—and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows its limitations—we know, judging from the First Commissioner of Works and the Secretary of State for Scotland, that Clause 24 is a Ministry of Agriculture Clause, but, also, that the Treasury have had their paws on it. Therefore, we fail to know exactly what Clause 25 really means when we see the scheme on the Table of the House or anywhere else.
I do not think it would retard one acre of land being turned over, or one action on the part of any farmer who desires to benefit under the terms of Clause 25, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had to put on the Table of the House any scheme prepared for the provision of goods and services for those farmers who need them. I hope I have kept strictly within the Rules of the House and, at least, satisfied hon. Members present that there is a case for such Orders relating to the provision of goods and services being laid on the Table of the House. I hope hon. Members will feel disposed to support this Amendment.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I rise to support this Amendment, and I would like to point out to the House that one reason why there was a certain amount of heated feeling on this Clause during the Committee stage was that the Clause as it stands had been widely interpreted as giving important powers to the Ministry to deal with one of the really great problems facing the agricultural community at the present time, namely, the lack of credit. When it was found that the Minister was, in fact, going to do almost nothing, that a scheme had been worked which, in the opinion of many of us, was quite unworkable and marked out any fanner who made use of it as being totally "uncreditworthy"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) did succeed in keeping within the Rules, but let me make this clear. Hon. Members can perfectly well argue that these schemes should be laid on the Table of the House, in order that they may know what is going to be done under this Clause, but they cannot spend time in explaining further objections to the Clause, which they have discovered since it was in Committee. This is no doubt a sufficiently good reason for moving an Amendment, but they must not go into details of the Clause or of the scheme which has been referred to.

Sir I. Albery: On a point of Order. May I ask, because I was not fortunate enough to be here when the Debate on this Clause started, whether it is possible to raise the point you have just mentioned on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must realise that we are not in Committee now.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Do I take it that we cannot discuss a scheme which we have not seen, and of which we have not heard?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is exactly my point. Certainly not. An hon. Member cannot discuss a scheme now.

Sir J. Lamb: If I am supporting a suggestion that a scheme should be laid on the Table, can I not say why it should not be laid on the Table because I disapprove of the one which has just been issued?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Amendment is not to a particular scheme on the Table. The scheme which is in hon. Members' minds cannot be discussed now.

Sir J. Lamb: If I am not permitted to say why I do not agree with the present scheme, is that not an argument why I think a scheme should come here so that I can discuss it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can say he does not like it and can say he is going to vote for that reason for the Amendment, but he cannot discuss it.

Mr. W. Roberts: I would submit that what I was attempting to do, perhaps not very clearly, was to give a reason why I

should support this Amendment so that the sort of thing that happened during the Committee stage should not happen again and so that the House might be informed of the way in which this Clause is being carried out. I would ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for a little more latitude. We all want to increase agricultural production, but, in fact, the administrative actions under this Clause are being taken now. I would like to draw to your attention the point that following the circularisation of this scheme, to which the Mover of the Amendment referred in considerable detail, there has been a further circular issued in which these words now occur:
The scheme may now be put into operation.
The Minister is, therefore, prevented by your Ruling from explaining or discussing a scheme which he has put into operation under a Bill which has not yet been passed, and I do suggest to you, Sir, that it is putting him into an exceedingly difficult position. You are driving us out of the House to express our criticism else where, and if you could see your way to allowing us a little more latitude on this important question in the interests of the agricultural community—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Unfortunately, I am precluded by the fact that I have to administer the procedure of the House in accordance with its Rules. I have ruled quite definitely that a scheme of which hon. Members know, and to which they object, may be a good reason for moving this Amendment, but that that particular scheme cannot now be discussed in detail. The fact that the hon. Member has now discovered a second scheme only gives me a second reason for ruling him out of Order.

Mr. Roberts: Then I will try to keep within your Ruling.

Mr. Ede: Do not try a third scheme.

Mr. Roberts: I am not pressing you, Sir, on the Ruling of what is the position that arises when a scheme is carried out under a Bill which is still before us. We are all anxious to see the Minister get on with this agricultural question. The burden of most Amendments and speeches in this House is that the Government are not being energetic enough in the prosecution of the campaign for producing more food. It is possible that the fault for


that lies, not at the door of the Ministry of Agriculture, but elsewhere. I support the Amendment because I think it is vital in future that we should have an opportunity of discussing the outlines of the scheme by which the Clause will be carried out. There could be a scheme under it which would very materially add to the production of food, but if it is drawn in such a narrow way that it is to apply only to the orders of the agricultural war executives and only to the 2,000,000 acres which have been ploughed up, the benefit of the Clause as it stands will be very much restricted, the need for capital at reasonable rates of interest, which is very widespread, will not be met, and the danger that we shall be starved as the result is greatly increased. I hope Members in all parts of the House will welcome and vote for the Amendment, because the narrow interpretation which the Ministry has put on the Clause leads me to believe that, although wide powers exist under the Bill and under the other procedure which the Minister follows, the regulations by Order, they are not availing themselves of those powers with nearly sufficient rapidity or energy. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: This mysterious and unknown and miserable scheme certainly ought to be laid on the Table of the House of Commons. Not to do so is, in the opinion of Members on all sides, treating this honourable House with nothing more nor less than crude contempt. Yet another of these miserable—

Mr. Deputy-Speakers: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to another fact brought to our attention by the last speaker? No power which can be exercised only under this Bill when it becomes an Act has been or can be exercised until it becomes an Act. The hon. Member will do well to bear that in mind.

Mr. W. Roberts: On a point of Order. What is our resource when we know that this scheme is being carried out on the instructions of the Ministry?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That seems to show that the matter has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: I submit that it very definitely has to do with the Clause and

that the scheme is drawn up under this Clause specifically. Here is a specific statement emanating from the Ministry saying that the scheme is now being carried out.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that if the Minister of Agriculture has no power to do it except under such powers as may be given him when the Bill becomes law, it cannot be done under this Bill at the present moment. It may be done under some other power which the Minister has, or it may be a forecast of what he intends to do when the Bill is passed. All that simply shows that the matter is not one for discussion on this particular Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: May I suggest to you, Sir, that you are ruling that the Minister can do no wrong?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I might find him doing many things wrongly.

Mr. De la Bère: When I was unfortunately unable to continue, I was speaking about this miserable unknown scheme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Which, I may remind the hon. Member, I have ruled cannot be discussed.

Mr. De la Bère: I am not going to discuss the scheme. I will deal strictly with the Amendment, which deals with regulations to be made by the Minister for the future laying of schemes of this nature on the Table. I think the whole House will agree that nothing could have been less generous as an approach than the whole matter that we are now dealing with in the Amendment. The approach to the subject, I think, was very far from happy. We do not yet know officially what it contains, but we may be quite sure that the scheme, which is known to some of us outside the House, is not one which would commend itself to our ideas of generosity. Therefore we feel that it is necessary, in order to produce the maximum amount of food, that the maximum amount of generosity should be displayed in dealing with this matter to which the Amendment calls attention, because, if regulations are laid on the Table, and if the Minister really has an opportunity of explaining them, it enables the House to gather the full sense of what they are legislating on. I think the House


has not really had an opportunity of gathering in what way they are required to pass the necessary legislation. They have been asked to pass legislation on something with which they were not familiar.
I cannot understand how it came about that my right hon. and gallant Friend, whom I welcome back so heartily after his sickness, could have allowed this to take place without the full knowledge of the House of Commons. I believe that, as the result of this very strenuous effort this evening, my right hon. and gallant Friend will never again permit such a thing to take place and that he will have learned his lesson that it is not desirable, nor in the interests of the people of this great nation, that this sort of Act should be perpetrated. Too long have we had to deal with matters with which we have not been made familiar. I think the Amendment serves a very useful purpose by making a strong and very determined protest against this procedure in introducing regulations in this manner. After all, what we really want is the fullest possible pressure and determination to see that we do the very best we can for agriculture.

9.29 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I wish to explain why I support the Amendment. I supported the Clause. The value of the Clause is in the administration of it. Since it went through the House, there have been instructions given—I have not had an opportunity of seeing them, but I have heard of them—and I am told that I cannot discuss them. As the fact is that I cannot discuss them, I say that I do not agree with them, and I want, if any further instructions are given, that they shall be laid on the Table so that I may see the method to be adopted in administering the Clause and have an opportunity of objecting, if necessary.

9.30 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I really want to meet the House. I thoroughly recognise the sincerity with which the Amendment has been moved, but I am precluded from dealing with the merits of the scheme and must confine myself to the Amendment. One difficulty I find about the Amendment is this. The word "regulations" comes in it. I am not certain that regulations are necessary for a scheme like

this. We have a whole spate of regulations going out from various Government Departments and I am certain that the hon. Member will not want to add to the number, if it is not necessary. Would it meet the wish of the House if the details of any particular scheme should be laid before the House? If so, I am prepared to do that.

Mr. T. Williams: If such a scheme is laid on the Table of the House will it be permissible to lodge a Prayer against it, or will there be any means at any time to deal with a particular scheme?

Colonel Burton: May we also ask whether a scheme will be laid on the Table of the House before it is put into operation, or whether it will be put into operation before a Prayer against it?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The difficulty is this. I am certain that the House will agree that if it is necessary that a scheme ought to be introduced in the light of events we do not want any delay in the matter. I am not a good enough Parliamentarian to know the details of procedure as regards a Prayer. I am quite willing to meet the House in this matter, and perhaps it may be possible to meet their wishes if I try in another place to introduce something to meet this point.

Mr. C. Davies: Does it mean that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is prepared to place before the House a draft scheme in general terms, and within those general terms to meet individual cases; that he is prepared to put a general draft scheme before the House before it comes into operation?

Mr. Ridley: I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his offer, and there is no reluctance on my part to meet him, but I am not quite sure how the House would stand if the Amendment was withdrawn and there was no obligation on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to lay a scheme before the House I suggest that he should take the words as they are and then alter them if necessary.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is no reluctance on my part to accept the hon. Member's suggestion, but I have given an undertaking that the particulars of a scheme will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. Alexander: I am anxious that we should secure what we have in mind by


the Amendment. I am not yet satisfied, although the spirit and intentions of the Minister are obviously bona fide, that his promise can be implemented in the direction that we desire. What we want quite clear is that in the major scheme to be operated under the Bill two things shall happen. The first is that the powers which the Minister operates by arrangements that he contracts with different people or committees shall be under regulations submitted to the House, and the second is that there shall be the power to raise the question of those regulations by Prayer, if necessary. Will the Minister undertake to have those two things dealt with in another place?

9.36 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I do not want to raise difficulties, but I would point out that this Clause deals with expenses, and the House is always jealous of another place interfering with anything involving a charge. I should like to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether such an Amendment moved in good faith in another place would be any interference with our prerogative.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think this Amendment has any reference to money.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The Amendment has no reference to money. I have said that there are some difficulties about regulations. It is rather hard to see how, in a scheme such as this, one would make regulations. What the House is anxious to know is what the scheme contains and what is the outline of the scheme. I should be very glad to accept that, and to lay the outline of the scheme before Parliament.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: On the assumption that the Minister will attempt in another place to meet the wishes of the House in a form of words that can be mutually agreed upon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.38 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: May I first of all apologise most humbly for having been absent during the other stages of the Bill? I am very grateful to those

hon. Members who have been good enough to say kind words on that matter. This Bill was described by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) as a very anaemic child, but he did say that it was probably my child, whereas the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) doubted whether it was my child, and thought that somebody else might be the parent of it. I confess that, on reading the Debate in my bed of sickness, it seemed to me that the Bill was treated as a child of somewhat doubtful parentage. I accept full responsibility for the Bill and I am only sad, as its parent, at the way it was treated, in spite of the very tender care and great protection given to it by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I think it is a child which is more misunderstood than lacking entirely in good points.
It has been suggested in the Debates that this Bill represented the only powers which the Government were taking to carry out their war-time policy in agriculture, but that is very far from being the truth. It is because of that assumption that the Bill was invested with an importance which I would never have sought for it. It seems to me that the House was expecting a Goliath of a Bill and was in a way disappointed when it got a David, although in a sense it enjoyed getting even a David. Perhaps I may, without being out of order, say that the only reason why no monumental Bill was introduced to deal with this most important question was because, with the powers which we are seeking under this Measure, in addition to the powers which we had before the war and have assumed since the war, we shall have all the machinery necessary to carry this campaign of extra food production to success.
I attach the greatest importance to the Clauses which deal with the cereal problem and I was rather disappointed to find that they were not even mentioned in the House as far as I could learn. I believe those Clauses which deal with the method of arriving at the prices of cereals and so on will play a very important part in the success of our campaign during this year. As I see it, there are two factors which will tend to show whether our campaign is going to succeed or fail. The first


is the determination of the men on the land to get the job done and the second is that the farmers should get the return for their produce which will enable them to carry on with their jobs and pay their workers a fair return for their labour. There are other matters in the Bill which will obviously have a tremendous effect, but I suggest that those are two fundamental things, namely, the determination of the farmers and the determination of the Government to see that they are enabled to carry on.

Mr. De la Bère: That is very important.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The Clauses dealing with cereals were meant to enable us to work out a properly balanced cereal programme which would be reasonably profitable and would enable the Government to fulfil the second condition to which I have referred as far as arable cultivation is concerned. Perhaps I may be allowed to express one little regret. It is that the hon. Member for Don Valley did not see in those Clauses a means of providing flesh for what he described as this anaemic child. Among other matters in the Bill the provisions as to drainage will, clearly, have a tremendous bearing on our campaign. I think that the drainage provisions in the Bill received the closest scrutiny and certainly came in for most criticism during the recent discussions. Again, it seemed to me that the House got the drainage proposals in the Bill rather out of perspective. It is difficult to get the atmosphere of a Debate by reading it but it seemed to me that there was an impression that this part of the Bill was the only contribution which the Government were making towards the solution of that great problem of land drainage. Actually, as I think is now clear, this is only a supplement to a very extensive programme which is being carried out by the catchment boards, with Government help and by the internal drainage boards, also with Government grants.
These proposals are put forward in the Bill for one purpose and that is to try to bring in every single acre of land which needs drainage and which can be drained. By this proposal we will deal with land which is not covered by existing legislation. It was my desire to include every acre of land which led me to bring these

proposals before Parliament and I hope the House will appreciate that they are only supplementary to the tremendous amount of work which is being done in this respect at the present moment. As regards the discussion on the £5 limit, all I can say is that before we decided on that limit we took the advice of those who are actually engaged on the job and who know the particular type of land with which this part of the Bill seeks to deal. I have not the slightest desire to be restrictive. On the contrary, I want to get on with the job as quickly as we can, but our advice was that this £5 limit would be by no means restrictive. The fact is that experience has shown that something like £2 an acre will do this kind of work and that the £5 limit will by no means restrict it but will allow for any increased cost one can possibly imagine. I hope that the House appreciates that I thoroughly realise how really sincere they are about this problem of drainage. I can only assure them that the Government is equally serious about it and will do everything which lies in its power to see that there are the necessary means to carry on the war that full drainage will allow.

Mr. De la Bère: The Minister has just spoken of a maximum of £5. We were told the other day that the average figure was £5. I hope it is quite clear and that there is no ambiguity about it.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is no ambiguity at all. I was talking about the maximum for a scheme. That means a maximum of £5 an acre on the average, which has been made abundantly clear to the House.

Mr. T. Williams: Rate of £5?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir. I do not want to raise the whole controversy again in regard to this question of drainage. I feel I ought to explain to the House that this requisites scheme which we have suggested is designed to fill a need put to me by various county agricultural executive committees—that the need did exist where some farmers had exhausted their present means of obtaining credit, and that it would be most helpful if, in order to assist—true a limited number of people—the county committees had the power to deal with supplies of requisites to help the really lame dog over the style. It was in answer


to their representation that I tried to meet the particular case which they had in mind. As I say, I do not want to raise any more controversy about this, but at the same time I should like to say there will be no inquisition into the applicants' other debts, nor will the transactions have in any way to be registered or advertised. This same problem arose in the last war. It was dealt with in much the same way, but instead of giving money we are giving requisites and services. The same rate of interest was charged then as we are proposing to charge now, but that is merely a matter of history.
I want to give one assurance to the House. The county committees are acting as my agents, and agents of the Government, and I do not want them to be harsh creditors at all. I want them to deal with these cases generously and with human understanding and really to try and make this show go. Our all-compelling aim is to help the farmers to increase their production. I appreciate that we will not be judged, as to whether we have succeeded or failed, by whether the books balance exactly after any given time, but on the extra amount of food which is produced. If one goes to any gathering of farmers and talks to them about credit, nine out of ten will say the same thing. That is, "It is not extra Government credit that we want. Give us fair prices for our produce, and then we will get all the credit we want." I agree, and we are determined that fair prices will be the order of the day. [An Hon. Member: "And fair wages."] I mean fair prices, including a reasonable and fair wage to the workers. There is no question about that in my mind. We are going to try and do that and we want to have this extra source to help the really lame dogs over the stile.

Major Braithwaite: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend explain to the House, what was not explained during the Committee, why a fixed rate of commercial interest is to be charged for an emergency programme, which is to become immediately operative, to increase food production?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think that that was explained very fully during this Committee stage. If hon. Members had to go into this credit business, as I have had to go into it in another capacity, they would realise that it is an extremely com-

plicated business because so many people enter into it—merchants, bankers, auctioneers, hire-purchase people, and so on. There is areal danger, unless we deal with the whole question of agricultural credit, which would need a more comprehensive measure than this, that if we tried to bring in a low rate of interest for certain sections we should harm people instead of help them, because it would be found that credit would contract on some fronts when it was extended in others. It is a difficult balance to hold.

Mr. De la Bère: No explanation was given of this provision in Committee. Is it suggested that these people should have to pay 5 per cent. when they are down and out? On the Government's own showing these are the people who are the hardest up, and yet they are to be asked, with a 2 per cent. bank rate, to pay 5 per cent. If by a miracle they are able to make deposits in the bank, the bank gives them only 1 per cent. There is no equity in it, and it is an outrage.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That was debated on the Committee stage, and the Committee divided on it. I agree that the House has a right to expect that the banker, the merchant, and every credit-giving body will play their part in this campaign and will treat it as one of their more vital contributions to our national war effort.
It has been asked whether the Government are, in fact, really determined to co-operate with those engaged in the industry to carry the food campaign to success. My answer is an unhesitating "Yes." My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made it clear that the Government attach the greatest possible importance to the successful outcome of this campaign. It will not be a simple task I know; we are bound to meet difficulties and problems are bound to arise from day to day; but it is our job as I see it energetically and enthusiastically to get round those problems and to assist in every possible way to get over them. We are going to do that. As the House will have realised, there have always been and will always be great differences of opinion as to the best way to deal with any agricultural problem. Indeed, there is a saying that where two or three farmers are gathered together you will never get agreement. I have known few things that


call for more controversy and difference of opinion than agriculture, but we have to find a way to get on with the job and we will find it. The Debate has made it clear that there is complete unity of thought in the House that this job has to go full steam ahead. I welcome that demonstration, and I yield to no one in my determination to see that it will go through to success. Because I believe that the various Clauses and measures that we ask for in the Bill will really assist us and will be a really useful addition to the present powers which the Government have, I ask the House to give the Bill the Third Reading.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made the very best use of the Bill which could be made from the Treasury Bench, and a good deal has been said about its being the child of the Minister. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House regard it as an offspring which is an outstanding example of very bad breeding. The sire, the Minister of Agriculture, may be useful, vigorous, and quite good. The dam, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is aged and without a decent pedigree. It is extremely bad, as the Bill indicates. That bad mating has been productive of a weakly, tubercular creature that would die through sheer malnutrition, but for a fact which I learned on Saturday afternoon; the child has a new foster-mother, the Lord Privy Seal He has now adopted the creature. It may be that more nourishment will be pumped into it so that what might have died at birth may develop into a healthy child in the days that lie ahead.
In the Bill, one sees the hand of the Treasury throughout. The first Part of the Bill deals with the standard price of wheat. The Treasury is interested therein. Part II deals with the standard price of oats, barley and rye. The hand of the Treasury can be seen all over Part II. Part III deals with the ploughing-up of land; the Treasury has to provide the £2 per acre. Part IV deals with drainage at a cost of £5 per acre and, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, no more. The Treasury is to be seen there. The Treasury is able to put up 50 per cent. of the cost of the drainage schemes, to a maximum of £5 per

acre; so the Treasury has its hand on the drainage Clauses. Clause 25 deals with goods and services of which we have heard so much and the Treasury has its hand on there. From beginning to end the Bill is no longer a Ministry of Agriculture Measure, but a Treasury Measure, and that is why many hon. Members are afraid that this weakly thing may not fulfil the general desire of this House.
We know, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has truly said, that this is neither the beginning nor the end of agricultural activities during the course of the war, but we know also that Part I is no extension of activity. It consists merely of a slight increase in the guaranteed price of home-produced wheat of millable quality. We know that Part II is a slight increase in the standard price for oats and barley produced, but since the price already obtainable for oats is far in excess of the standard price in the Bill, Part II means little or nothing in the way of increased productivity, except that it is a latent guarantee to those farmers who plough up their land and sow more oats, barley, etc., than otherwise might have been the case. The ploughing Clause is a slight extension of what the House accepted many months ago. Working behind the ploughing policy is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's big hope that we shall make infinitely more use of our own soil for the duration than we were making in peace-time. That all depends upon the county machinery, the energy of the war agricultural executive, the district committees and the sub-committees, on the way they are manned and on the way they carry out their duties.
So far as drainage is concerned, having been in this House for some considerable time, having been present when the 1930 Drainage Act was passed and having persisted in my demands of Minister of Agriculture after Minister of Agriculture that they do the job of drainage properly, I know that this is not the first, and I hope it will not be the last, drainage Measure. We not only passed the Act of 1930;we passed the Act of 1937, and I know that these Clauses relating to drainage are merely intended to fill a gap in the general drainage scheme. It is not the filling of a gap that we want so much as the opening up of some gap and the draining of many hundreds of thousands of acres of land in this country.
Clause 23, which gives power to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his agents in the county to take over land which is either not being cultivated or not being cultivated in accordance with the laws of good husbandry, is quite a proper Clause, particularly in war time, but I should like to see this on the Statute Book in peace time as well. It is an admission that in time of peace we ignore the use of our land to such an extent that when we require all the food that we can produce from it we have to embody a special Clause in the Bill giving power to the Government to take over the land which has not been cultivated according to the laws of good husbandry. We appropriate land which has been badly cultivated for the purpose of producing food, and then, lo and behold, immediately the emergency is over we have to go back to the same people who have neglected it for so long. The principle in Clause 23 is right in so far as it gives the Government power to take over land, but I am sure that the principle is wrong when it gives power to hand the land back to those who have neglected it so long.
Clause 25 could have been a good Clause had not the Minister of Agriculture to get consent from the Treasury for everything that he did. Clause 25 as; it now stands is not a Ministry of Agriculture Clause at all. It is a Treasury Clause, and that fact is written in every word and line of it. To the extent that this Clause can be made useful, I am sure that every hon. Member will be glad to see the Minister make the maximum use of the power which he has obtained. When he produces a scheme and brings it to the House, I hope it will be a good scheme, one which will give us some power to enable merchants, auctioneers, and those who have been hangers-on on farming for some generations to obtain relief during the war and to enjoy the end of the emergency period. Perhaps one has said more about this little Measure than one should have done. I do not think there is a lot in it, but I express this hope, that if the farmers can see any virtue in an increased guaranteed price for their wheat, in an increased guaranteed price for their oats and barley, in the Treasury providing them with £2 for every acre of land they turn over, in the Treasury providing them with £50 of the cost of draining

their land, and in the Treasury providing them with a goods and services scheme of a kind, then at least the farmers should respond and the job of the Minister should be a comparatively easy one.
In every speech the Minister makes on agriculture, he repeats, almost parrot-like, this phrase, "What we are anxious to do is to provide for farmers reasonable prices for their output." I have heard it over the wireless. I have heard it from that Box, I have read it in newspapers. Every new Bill we get is a further effort to provide more and more, in the shape of prices, to farmers. But, so far as I can recall, the farmers have made no single gesture to their agricultural labourers'. Even now, although we have a promise from the Minister that a Bill will be produced shortly to deal with the conditions of agricultural labourers, I do not think, from the comments that have been made by some of my hon. Friends, that the farmers have been too generous to their workers. I hope that they will see the virtues of this Bill, such as they are, that they will remember what the House has done for them from 1931 down to 1940, and that they will display more generosity than hitherto to those agricultural labourers, without whose services they cannot manage, and who are, in fact, the most vital force in our agricultural industry.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: The Minister told us that the powers in this Bill are those that the Government had in the last war.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I said that the scheme was similar to that which was adopted in the last war.

Mr. Roberts: I understand that the Minister himself referred only to this little credit business. Having looked at something of what was done during the last war, I would suggest that he has, in fact, so far taken very little more power than his predecessors found that they had to take during the last war. Much of what he has done is modelled exactly on what was done during the last war. I do not complain of it because it is the same as was done during the last war, for much of what was done then proved very successful. But Ministers—more, perhaps, before Christmas than to-day—have been apt to compare the efforts now being made with the efforts which were made


during the last war. What is required to-day is a much greater effort. We require quicker results in the production of food than were obtained then. That is vital.
The criticisms of this Bill have been not so much on what it contains as on what it does not contain. It has not done enough. I do not think the position is very satisfactory. It is estimated that in 1914 we were providing only 34 per cent. of the food that was required in the country. That is a net figure, after the imports of raw materials, in the shape of feeding-stuffs, had been deducted from the gross output of British farming. The position to-day is probably worse, in that the net produce of British agriculture is a smaller proportion than that 34 per cent. The need is greater. It is because that need is so widely felt that we have been a little impatient, perhaps, on these benches when the Government were taking what looked like effective steps to deal with the real difficulties that the farmers were suffering under, and when we found that those wide powers were being interpreted in a very narrow, mean way.
I asked a question on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage with regard to drainage, and I had hoped to hear the answer from the Minister on the Third Reading. What is the estimate of the Minister as to the amount of drainage which can and ought to be done, or that will be done under the Act? The Government have taken powers, but we have not been told what it is intended to accomplish, and the House is entitled to know. When we are not told we are left in doubt as to whether the whole effort is really being planned systematically or whether the Ministry is approaching the problem by saying, "You must have higher prices for this and higher prices for that; there is a small group of farmers who really cannot carry out the county committees' orders, and therefore we must have authority to supply them with ploughs, fertilisers, seed and grain; and there is this and that difficulty to overcome." There is no comprehensive general scheme as to what the contribution of British agriculture to the food supply is to be, and how that contribution is to be effected. The Minister said that the two main factors in increasing

production would probably be good will and higher prices.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Determination on the part of producers to overcome certain difficulties, and fair prices which will enable them to increase production.

Mr. Roberts: Determination and fair prices—I certainly accept the alteration. Determination is undoubtedly what is wanted, but we on this side of the House say that that alone is not enough and that there are many other obstacles standing in the way of increasing production which have to be overcome. I once heard the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking at the annual meeting of the National Farmers' Union in London, say that he had gone into farming on one occasion determined to make it pay, whatever it might cost. I think that many people have undertaken an individual farming enterprise determined to make it pay, whatever it might cost, and that probably is the right spirit for the Government and the Minister of Agriculture to adopt at the present time. We fear the influence of the Treasury upon the expenditure under this Bill. Clause 25 is the only Clause, I believe, in which it is clearly set out that it shall at all times be subject to the approval of the Treasury, but in the other Clauses, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, one can hear the Treasury chains clanking from one Clause to another. It is, we believe, very short-sighted to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar in regard to the question of food production at the present time.
The Treasury may sanction on behalf of the Ministry of Food immense purchases of food from abroad which may be paid for but which may never reach this country, but expenditure to make it possible for farmers and farm workers in this country to produce more food will not be wasted. If it produces the food, it will be paying for itself. Much of the success of this Bill will certainly rest upon the determination of the organisation which the Minister has at his command in the county war agricultural committees. There are powers under this Bill which, if they were used by the Minister through county committees, could increase production very considerably, if they were broadly interpreted. During the last war


surveys were carried out, on a rather narrow basis, of the possibilities of increasing production in each county, and there are powers in this Bill which could be used by the Minister, through county committees, to find out how production can be increased in the whole of a county and on each farm. Not only is the ploughing-up campaign important; the livestock industry is highly important, and we want to maintain our milk supply. That being so, county committees must inquire what are the requirements of a county for feeding-stuffs, fertilisers, and implements. Under Clause 25 one had hoped that they would be able to satisfy these requirements freely, but we are not so sure now that they will be able to do so. I would like to suggest, before this Bill becomes law, that to concentrate solely on ploughing-up is not nearly enough. The production of food from the remaining 30,000,000 acres is even more important than production from the additional 10 per cent. of arable land. We support the Bill in the hope that the Minister will use all his powers to the full.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I shall intervene in this Debate for only a few moments because I feel I am entitled to do so for the reason that on every agricultural Debate since the outbreak of war I have sat in the House continuously for at least six hours. I welcome the Bill such as it is: I think it will do good and increase the production of our soil and food. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister was not here, during the Committee stage, but he told us he had read the Official Report of the Debates and he must have realised that there was a great feeling of disappointment among all sections of the House. I think that feeling, perhaps subconsciously, was due to the realisation by all sections of the House that every political party for three generations past had utterly neglected the land of Britain. We realise now what peril we are in to-day and how, if we had looked after our land, we should be producing £200,000,000 worth more of foodstuff, saving the lives of our seamen, and enabling more tonnage to be given over to other goods. This Bill will do something for our land and will enable more food to be produced, perhaps £30,000,000 worth. I was rather shocked by a phrase used by

the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He said that the Bill would allow more use of our own soil for the duration of the war. If I thought he meant that, I should despair of the Bill being of any permanent use to the country. I hope it is going to lay the foundations of better conditions for the future. I hope that we realise the mistake we have made in neglecting our soil and sending our capital overseas to develop foreign lands instead of our own, and that the Bill will help, after the war, to restore a proper balance, a saner life based on a close alliance with agriculture, instead of this unhealthy, feverish, over-urbanised mechanical civilisation that we have built up.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. C. Davies: I agree with the hon. Member in regretting the sins of omission of the past, but it is no good talking about them now. What we are anxious about now is how much food we are going to get produced during this period of grim anxiety. The only justification for a Bill dealing with agriculture in time of war is how much extra food it will produce for the immediate requirements of the people. One would have liked to have heard an estimate of the amount of land that will be brought under cultivation as the result of the drainage scheme. I should like to know what is the estimate of the Ministry of Food, to whom the Minister of Agriculture must be subservient during a time like this, as to the amount of production that we shall have during the coming and the following year as the result of past efforts and the new efforts which will be made under this Bill. There is a number of matters here. There are Part I, dealing with prices of wheat and other cereals, and then Part II, dealing with oats, rye and barley. There is the part of it dealing with drainage and the part dealing with the giving of credit or the giving of services.
I should like to know what estimate the Government have made of all that. I know that for months they have been making an estimate of the position of the enemy. We know almost to a pint what oil he has. We know almost to a pound, certainly almost to a quarter, what wheat he has. We know to a sack-load what potatoes he has. An estimate can be made, pretty nearly accurate, of


what is our position in this country. An estimate will have to be made of what will be imported into the country as time goes on. Unfortunately the Government estimate of what was likely to come in during the first two or three months of the war was sadly wrong, or else the House has been misled with regard to the position of feeding-stuffs, for instance. We know how sadly we have been needing them since the end of October. Have the Government now worked out what they think will be the production under present methods, and what will be the production when this Bill becomes an Act? It is all very well for the Minister to say, "We are determined, we are going to put a new drive into this, we shall do our utmost to produce; we are anxious about this, so anxious that we do not let a moment pass without considering what we are going to do." One heard with a certain amount of surprise the Lord Privy Seal announce a few days ago that this was receiving the constant attention of the Cabinet. I should like to know how much attention the First Lord of the Admiralty could give to a matter of this kind, or any other member of the War Cabinet. It is all very well to make promises like that. I have heard the same promise made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Health and the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Food. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is merely echoing words which we have heard for eight years.
Let us know the facts. It is absolutely vital that we should know the facts now. Certain goods are being rationed, certain foods are being rationed, and we may have to ration more, and it is only right that the public should know the facts. This is a democratic country, and I say to the Government that they should trust the people. Tell them the truth, even if it hurts, even if it is dangerous, and they will respond. What is the estimate the Government have made of the additional amount of land which will be under the plough? That estimate will vary from week to week. I do not suppose that the estimate they are making to-day is the estimate they had in mind before the Christmas frost. We have had eight weeks in which it has been almost impossible to plough the land, and the

estimate must have gone down considerably. You can judge pretty well, granted normal conditions such as we are likely to have during March and April, what is likely to be the extra amount put under the plough, what amount you expect to get from it, how much of the land you will be able to drain, and the yield it will be producing. Will it be producing—certainly not in 1940—in 1941, or in 1942, and will it be producing an increasing amount as the years go by? It is difficult to believe that it will do so when we see the niggardly amount put in the Memorandum. These are the matters which are troubling us.
In the same way with regard to credit. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made an extraordinary admission in regard to that. He said that in order to deal with the question of credit a much more comprehensive scheme than this would be required. I agree. But where is that comprehensive scheme? The country is in danger; every moment is vital. Cannot you secure your accountants and your people at the Treasury to work out your comprehensive scheme? I have heard for the last eight years of a long-term agricultural policy. The war has caught us before that policy has been produced, and no wonder the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) is regretting that agriculture has been neglected. Cannot we get it now? Cannot a promise be given from that Box that there will be a comprehensive policy, instead of passing on with this Bill, which the Minister himself admits is inadequate? We are parting with this Bill, and it is going to another place. It does not bring much satisfaction to us.
The Minister was right when he said that determination is necessary. That determination he will find among the farmers. They are most anxious to get on with the job, but they have had precious little encouragement from the Government Front Bench. That is not due to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. They have had precious little encouragement with regard to their young men who have been taken away from them, and who are being taken away from them to-day. Even the blacksmiths and the farriers who are necessary have been taken away. Yet you expect the farmers to plough up more land and to produce more food. If the young


blacksmiths are taken away, how are the horses to be shoed and the ploughs and harrows repaired? There will be breakages and nobody to attend to them. What is the good of the Minister appealing to the determination of the farmers if other right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench do not help him? There must be a comprehensive policy for production, and all must assist. The Minister also said that there must be fair prices. Will he tell us whether he thinks that the farmers are getting fair pricesto-day—whether, for example, they are getting a fair price for their animals? What is the good of promising things? What I ask is that the words of the Minister be carried out by the Government, and then there will be a response from the farmers.

10.33 p.m.

Major Braithwaite: Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about the passage of this Bill through the House was the enforced absence of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture, which we all regretted. I feel that he has done more to-night to clarify the position than has been done in any other speech that we have heard about the Bill from the Government Front Bench. We were not fully informed on the finer points of the Bill. I think that generally the country was expecting something of a larger nature in an agricultural Bill at this time. The country wants an ample food supply, and is looking to the Minister to take the earliest opportunity of doing everything necessary to get the fullest powers in order that we can get the maximum food production as soon as possible. When this Bill was introduced as a part contribution to the scheme, hon. Members and the country were profoundly disappointed.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely, the general public of this country was fully entitled to have a scheme—after we had been at war for six months—instead of this miserable makeshift of a Measure. Absolutely miserable—there is no ambiguity about that.

Major Braithwaite: I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Government realise that the criticisms which hon. Members have made only show the very great anxiety which we feel about the situation. I think I can speak for the

farmers of the country when I say that we all have the greatest possible confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. We know that he knows the job, we know that he is practical, and we know that he fully realises how long it takes to get this great machine into full working order. He is at a great disadvantage in having taken over from other people who let the industry down to such an extent that his job was very difficult at the time he took office. I feel that, small as the Bill is, it is a substantial contribution towards what we are trying to do.
The Minister referred to the cereal provisions. I speak for one of the greatest cereal-growing constituencies in the country, and I say that we welcome those provisions and thank the Minister for them. They have been rather delayed, but even so, we are grateful and recognise that they will be, partly at any rate, an incentive to cereal-growing. The drainage Clauses have been needed for a long time, but I am surprised that my right hon. and gallant Friend, with his knowledge of agriculture, has left out any provision for tile drainage, which is absolutely necessary. Provision is being made only for the heavy lands. Nothing has been done for the light lands, which have been neglected for years. Whether in this Measure or another, something will have to be done in order to secure adequate drainage of the light lands of this country, and the farmers must be helped in that respect.
I come now to credit facilities. We have heard much from time to time about helping the farmers to finance their operations. Everybody knows that the farmers have been stripped of their capital. In the main it is the small farmer who has suffered most. When I asked about credit facilities during our Debates the Minister who replied said that these credit facility proposals were only a small measure and that this was not intended to be a large-scale credit operation. Yet the farmers of the country are being asked to do a work of national importance, and I think the country would desire that the farmers should have behind them all the money that is necessary to enable them to carry out the biggest possible programme. If there is any shortage of money, the Treasury will be to blame. If a shortage of money retards this programme and the people of the country have to go without food


which they ought to have, the Government will be held responsible. It has been pointed out to them repeatedly that it is just as necessary to find money for the production of food, as for the making of ships and shells. When the farmers are asked to go in for a greatly extended form of agriculture, when everyone is asked to do far more than has ever been done before, it is surprising that the money necessary for such an undertaking cannot be found at a rate of interest lower than that suggested in the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who is responsible?

Major Braithwaite: We have been trying to elucidate that all through these Debates. At any rate the point is that if the farmers are asked to do more than the normal farming work, in order to meet a national emergency, it is right that the Government should propose something better than the normal commercial rate of interest, in connection with the money required for those operations. I ask the Government to consider the fundamental fact that you cannot make bricks without straw and you cannot farm without money.

Mr. Tomlinson: They do not use straw to make bricks now.

Major Braithwaite: Anyhow, money is used in agriculture, and an ample supply should be provided by the Treasury in an emergency like the present one in order to get the production that we need. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked why the Government did not make a survey and give the figures of potential production. I do not know that it is a good thing to give every bit of information to the enemy. I think it is just as dangerous to tell them how much food we are raising as to tell them how many shells we are making. They are after our food far more than after our shells, and the Government ought to have something up their sleeve.

Mr. C. Davies: That is not the point. The whole point of it is that we may know what is expected and farmers may be encouraged to do it. That is much more important than merely what the Germans should know. Let us know.

Mr. Speaker: I think we are going a little beyond the terms of the Bill.

Major Braithwaite: I am very sorry. I only wished to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend. We are very grateful to the Minister for what he has done, but I am sorry it cannot be a more comprehensive and a larger Measure. I think he has had time to give us a larger Measure. The Minister is bringing in these Measures in small doses, but, confronted with a great war as we are, the Minister must take the fullest and widest powers and do everything possible to put farming and food production on a sound and safe footing. We are very anxious about the whole situation. The farmers and the farm workers will do everything in their power to ensure that any instructions the Minister gives are carried out in a proper and satisfactory manner, and I think some of the provisions of the Bill will make their jobs easier. But I sincerely hope that the Minister will not be long, and if he has any further Measures to bring in, that he will bring them in immediately, so that we can get down to the vital necessity of agricultural production at the earliest possible opportunity.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I make no apology for intervening at this late hour because I maintain that, while the speeches of the English Members have shown considerable agitation among the English farming community, this Bill should have the position of Scotland represented. I will make my remarks as pungent as possible. The Secretary of State for Scotland accused me, on the last occasion when I intervened in an agricultural Debate, of using violent language. Well, I have listened to the language of English Members on agriculture for a considerable time, and I say, in all seriousness, that the language is a reflection of the feelings of the farming community and that, judging from the tenour of the speeches, the Government are creating very great difficulties for themselves in the future.
This Bill has been described as a weakly child, an anæmic child, and as a skeleton without flesh, but I say that, as far as Scotland is concerned, the child is stillborn. I want to draw attention to the Measure as it affects Scotland. I have raised these aspects already. I notice the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) here. He is a practical farmer, and the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Young),


who also has knowledge of farming and wages. The hon. Member for Perth will agree that a vast section of the farming community in Scotland are mainly in the hands of the landowners, and the Bill will be prejudiced by that fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) surprised me when he referred to "our land." In Scotland the people do not refer to it as "our land," but as "their land"—the land controlled by the members of the war agricultural committees which will make recommendations to the Scottish Secretary, and whose recommendations will determine the working of this Bill in Scottish fanning. Only on receiving a report from a committee will the Secretary of State take action. If the Government had been serious in wishing to assist agriculture, at least in Scotland, they would have left the initiative with the Government.
The "Scotsman" has issued a list of the war agricultural committees in Scotland who will make recommendations, and it shows that one committee after another has a lieutenant-colonel So-and-So, a major-general So-and-So, a lord, an earl or a laird as chairman or secretary. These are the people who are to make recommendations before the Secretary of State can assist the fanning community. During the last four years the Government, knowing the dangers in Europe, should have developed every acre of land, but in Scotland the land has deteriorated. Replies given by the Secretary of State have shown that less land was being cultivated year after year, until the agitation in the House roused the Government to make some effort.
I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he believes that under this Bill he will receive from these committees, composed as they are of landowners, and with owners' agents as secretaries, recommendations in the national interest to help farming. The position in Scotland is a farce because of the composition of the war agricultural committees. Members may say that a Member representing an industrial area should not intervene in an agricultural question, but it is the industrial areas which will be affected by the food-production policy and will have to pay the price of a bad policy. Just as the industrial areas had to pay for the Government's neglect on the coal question, so they will have to pay for

the Government's neglect of the agricultural question. I have heard later of the efforts of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on behalf of agriculture, but, from conversations I have had with the hon. Gentleman and others, I assure the Minister that many hon. Members believe that the hon. Member is to be congratulated for the constant fight he has put up. Sometimes he has created a diversion by his very vehemence. I believe the Minister would be the first to agree that the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on those efforts.

Mr. Ridley: That is the first kind word he has had for years.

Mr. Davidson: If that is so, I am unique, as the Member for Maryhill. I believe that these agricultural committees will spoil the Bill. Does the Minister realise that the National Farmers' Union, which represents mostly tenant farmers, is, in most cases, the dominant body on the executive committee? If the Minister will inspect the position of those who have power to appoint a committee and those who are placed in control of the committee's decisions—the office bearers and the salaried secretaries—he will find that the poor tenant farmer is a very big obstacle if he raises his voice in the council. In the Isle of Bute, most of the people are tenant farmers, under the Marquess of Bute. They are all driven and controlled by the Marquess of Bute, who has officials on the committees to represent his interests; and the tenant farmers will not rise and say a word against the man who controls their livelihood and their farms. We have had that experience in Scotland for many years.

Sir Edmund Findlay: Is the hon. Member aware that on that executive committee neither the Marquess of Bute, his tenants, nor his factor is in charge?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the Marquess of Bute.

Mr. Davidson: I would very much like to enlarge on that subject, but I am dealing with another question. In my opinion the committees do not represent truly the farming community in Scotland. They are largely controlled by officialdom. The Secretary of State knows my opinion that, in any circumstances, he would defend those people before any other section of the community. He represents


those interests in Scotland who control the land. If a Member of Parliament, a soldier, or a member of any other Service refused to do his duty and acted against the best interests of the nation, he would be dealt with according to the law of the land. He might have a right of appeal.

Mr. Loftus: In the case of a Member of Parliament, how would he be dealt with?

Mr. Davidson: I am a much younger Member of the House than some hon. Members, but perhaps I have taken as much interest in these matters as they have since I came here, and I can assure hon. Members that there are crimes for which a Member can be called to the Bar of this House and made to answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must confine his speech to the Bill.

Mr. Davidson: I am sorry, but those interruptions are very diverting, if I may say so. If a soldier in the Army neglects his duty, he can be called to account. He has one appeal, but if the appeal is turned down he has to obey the law. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that if a landowner or a person in control of land does not carry out his duties in accordance with the regulations—the exact words are:
where…the Secretary of State is satisfied that any agricultural land in the area of that committee is being injured or in danger of being injured by reason of the failure of the owner or occupier to cleanse or scour
—the Secretary of State may—just "may," not "shall"—send him a notice and tell him that in his opinion he is not doing the right thing and that he must undertake the repairs. The landowner may then appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State studies his appeal, and then he decides that the man is still in the wrong. Remember, we are dealing with landowners, not workers. He appeals; his appeal is considered, and the Secretary of State says, "No, you are wrong, and we find against you. You must carry on with the repairs, and if you do not do them, I shall do the work instead." So the Secretary of State is empowered to carry out the repairs that this man should have done but has neglected to do. He has been found guilty of neglect, but if the Secretary of State

desires to charge him for doing the work which he neglected to do he may then appeal. Not only has he the right of appeal, but he has the right of appeal, after being found wrong on two occasions, to the Scottish Land Court, and after the Scottish Land Court give their decision, if they support the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State may then out of public funds give to this landowner who neglected his land some financial support to pay for the repairs which the Secretary of State has done because the man neglected his duty. The whole thing is a farce. I maintain that under this Clause the farming community will be afraid to raise their voices. I have received communications from agricultural experts in Scotland with regard to this matter, where men of great experience have been completely neglected.
I desire to ask one last question. Who were consulted, what bodies representing the workers' interests in agriculture were consulted, with regard to the setting up of agricultural committees? The Crofters' Union were not consulted. In many cases local councils were completely neglected. Therefore, with that lack of support from those particular bodies, I say this is a bad Bill as it affects Scotland, and I regret that no hon. Member in any part of the House, on one side or the other, has had an opportunity of bringing forward a definite Amendment which would at least have improved the Bill in this particular respect.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: The Title of this Bill is the "Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Bill," and the House will note that "miscellaneous war provisions" is in the centre. War provisions should be on a generous basis. No one can argue that this Bill fully meets the food requirements of this country in time of war. How my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister can suggest that this is just a Measure to help us on the way, and that others will follow, after six months of war, I do not know.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We already have a lot of powers.

Mr. De la Bère: That is not an adequate answer. We do not know exactly what those powers are. If the Government have them, they do not use them to the full extent. I do not wish to take


up the time of the House—I should not have spoken now had my Amendment on Clause 25 been called—but I wish to draw attention to the part of the Bill that deals with credit. My right hon. and gallant Friend spoke about prices, as he has done a dozen times—we are sick of hearing about them. It is no good his looking bored. In spite of the assurances he has given, in his wonderful, airy way, the prices that farmers are getting are below the cost of production. Yet he says it is all a matter of prices. Certainly it is; but prices alone, in view of the fact that the farmers are depleted of capital, will not enable them to carry on and give the increased food production that we must have. They are important; but my right hon. and gallant Friend is not protecting the farmers on prices. It is the one thing on which he has let them down. He assures me that he has conferred with the Minister of Food, but I cannot see that he has done anything. The prices of livestock are below the cost of production, having regard to the price of foodstuffs.
I cannot understand why, when I get on to the question of the 5 per cent., he should sweep it aside and say it is of no importance. It is all a matter of importance. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) informed us, in the last Debate, that it might easily run into £250,000. Why should these needy farmers, men who, on the Minister's own admission, are in desperate straits, pay £250,000 to the banks? My hon. Friend over there said that nobody seemed to know why this was done. It is clear that the reason why they are paying 5 per cent. for credits is because the bankers intended to have their fullest possible interest, and no attempt was made by the Treasury or by my right hon. and gallant Friend to prevent that. It is no good my being too polite; it is no good my being too rude, but I am going to tell my right hon. and gallant Friend the truth. He acquiesced; he took the line of least resistance and capitulated, as he has done from the very day he became Minister of Agriculture. I know his difficulties; he has never had the full support he might have asked for. We have not seen my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal during the entire Debate. He is a busy man, but he has pledged himself,

as chairman of the Cabinet Committee, to assist agriculture.
My right hon. and gallant Friend tells us that this is a contribution to agriculture. It may be a contribution to agriculture, but I believe that, if it is ever mentioned by posterity, it will be as the "Miserable Miscellaneous Agriculture Bill." I cannot help feeling that when we are at war we should take this whole agricultural question a great deal more seriously than to put forward a Measure which does nothing to meet those dangers which some hon. Members think are so funny. I do not like standing up here and being laughed at; some hon. Members seem to think I do not mind, but I mind it far less than they think because a lot of "Yes"-men in this country are too idle and too independent to do their job when the country is being endangered day in and day out because of these silly, laughing nonentities who occupy benches in this House.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I rise, not to make a speech, but really to put a point to the Secretary of State for Scotland about which I have been in correspondence with him. There is a large agricultural estate owned by the Crown near my constituency, and I communicated to the Minister a large number of complaints from tenant farmers because they were unable to get any improvements or repairs done to their farms. I was astonished to receive a reply from the Minister of Agriculture that since the war, not only had all improvements but all repairs to these farms had been discontinued.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question which can be discussed on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Garro Jones: Am I not entitled to put a point which is within the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a question which comes under the Bill.

Mr. Garro Jones: This Bill, as I understand it, deals with the question of mole drainage and powers relating to dams.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask questions on all these subjects.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I put the point and then leave it? I will not pursue it.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I suggest that if the hon. Member is allowed to put his point, it ought to be answered.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (POSTPONEMENT OF VALUATIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

CLAUSE I.—(Postponement of next valuation till after end of emergency.)

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: On a point of Order. There are, I understand, on the Order Paper three Amendments to this Clause, and there is the possibility of a manuscript Amendment by the Minister. Would it be convenient to you, Sir Dennis, and to the Committee, if we could have a short general discussion on these Amendments, when the Minister might perhaps advise the Committee as to the best thing to do? I think it would economise the time of the Committee if we could discuss these Amendments rather generally before they are moved, if it is acceptable to you, Sir Dennis.

The Chairman: I am not proposing to call the first two Amendments, but I think it is pretty obvious that hon. Members will be able to raise points on the third Amendment, which I now call.

11.11 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(2) While the said valuation lists remain in force, any increase or reduction in value attributable directly or indirectly to the present emergency if and in so far as it—

(a) is peculiar to a particular hereditament; or
(b) affects a particular hereditament and also other hereditaments of a comparable character in the rating area in question, but does not affect all classes, or substantially all classes, of hereditaments in that area
shall, in relation to that hereditament, be deemed to be an alteration in the matters stated in the valuation list within the meaning of paragraph (1) of Section forty-six of the said Act (which relates to supplemental lists) and to be such an increase or reduction in value as is referred to in Section forty-seven of the said Act (which relates to provisional lists).

This Sub-section shall apply in relation to any such increase or reduction as aforesaid whether it occurred before or after the passing of this Act, and any such increase or reduction

(i) shall be taken into account for the purposes of the said Section forty-seven notwithstanding that it occurred otherwise than in the course of the year; and
(ii) shall, if a provisional list or a requisition for a provisional list has been made in the preceding twelve months be taken into account for the purposes of any revision under the said Section forty-six, notwithstanding that the increase or reduction occurred otherwise than during those twelve months."
I shall not detain the Committee for very long, but I feel I should explain, very briefly, the object we seek to achieve by the Amendment and the manner in which we propose that that object should be attained. Under the 1869 Act the rating system of London was based on a quinquennial valuation, and Sections 46 and 47 of the Act provided for the fluctuations in value which necessarily occurred during the quinquennial period, and laid down the manner in which these changes in value should be reflected in the assessment for rates. On the details of the procedure to be followed, once reassessment has been made, these two Sections are precise almost to the point of embarrassment, but on the major and far more important grounds on which an appeal for reassessment might be made the Sections are extremely vague. Section 47 merely provides that an appeal for reassessment can be made if for any cause there has been any change in the value of the hereditament. That vague word "cause" has, for over 70 years past, provided a steady, substantial and satisfactory income for the legal profession, but it is, I think, fair to say that, based on certain legal decisions, something like a working interpretation has been arrived at, which, with variations of degree, and slight variations of scope, has proved workable. But there has been substantial variation in the interpretation placed by the different legal authorities upon this term "cause," and it may be that there is a certain amount of legal doubt because the decisions on which this interpretation has been based are decisions taken many years ago, and certainly, in conditions completely different from those which obtain at the present moment. As I say, the arrangement has, on the whole, worked, but the impact of war and war conditions on this great


group of towns we call London, with its unique and complex system of local government, has created problems of changing values, of a magnitude and urgency completely different from any thing which has ever occurred in normal times, and times of peace—

Mr. E. Smith: The same applies to other parts of the country.

Sir H. Webbe: Therefore it has become more urgent than it has ever been, and more important than ever, that we should clarify the position and that we should secure as far as possible a liberal interpretation of the term "cause," and that we should secure that any relief by way of reduction of assessment which may be granted where it is really deserved should be quickly of value to the ratepayer.
During the Debate on the Second Reading instance after instance was given of very grave hardships that are being suffered by individual ratepayers, and there is no doubt in my mind as to the urgency of dealing with this problem and finding such solution as we may. Therefore the principal object which my hon. Friends and I have in setting down this Amendment—I know we are pursuing exactly the same objects as those who have put their names to other Amendments—is to secure a remedy for this inequality and to endeavour, as far as we can, to obtain justice as between one ratepayer and another. The first part makes clear that any circumstance of the war which has peculiarly affected a hereditament, or a class of hereditaments, and has affected it in a manner and to an extent different from that in which it may have affected other hereditaments inside the rating area, shall be admitted as a ground for appeal for a revision of assessment. I have been told that the Amendment provides little or no more than is the actual practice to-day of certain rating authorities. I believe it lays down a more liberal interpretation of Section 47 of the Act of 1886 than is in fact the general practice and, at the worst, it gives statutory authority for the practice of the best and most liberal rating authorities in the matter. It will, I believe, reassure the many ratepayers of London who are suffering at present by giving them the knowledge that they have the right to have their case heard, and I am convinced that the hearing of those cases will

in a large number of cases bring actual relief.
The second part of the Amendment is concerned to ensure that, if and when relief is given by a revision of assessment, the effect of that revision shall not be delayed. The Amendment does not alter fundamentally the method of the preparation of provisional and supplemental lists on which revisions are based under Sections 46 and 47 of the Act. It widens the application of these Sections and to an extent modifies their effect. Its effect is that if and when an appellant obtains a revision of his rating assessment the effect of that revision will be secured at once and will not be subject to the mere chance of the day on which the appeal was first made. I suggest that the Amendment will materially improve the machinery of rating assessment. It does not attack the fundamental problem which faces rating authorities in London of making ends meet, but it makes a contribution to improving the machinery under which we work.
Let me say a word on the scope of the Amendment by comparing it with the other two Amendments on the Paper. The Amendment which was suggested by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) goes a great deal wider than mine. In particular the inclusion of the words "in the same locality" seems to me to open the door far too wide and involve a risk, if not the probability, of a haphazard revaluation at a time when it is administratively difficult and at a time when it would be extremely unfortunate to have to carry out such a task. The other Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) is nearer to mine, but my Amendment is slightly more restricted in scope as I have provided that circumstances arising directly or indirectly from the emergency shall only be taken into account if and in so far as they do not affect, or substantially affect, all classes of hereditaments in that area. The Amendment of the hon. Member does not contain that limitation and I submit that the failure to limit in that way would potentially open the door to a far wider revaluation than we can honestly expect, having regard to the purposes of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept the Amendment.
I think I should say this. In my view this Amendment is of great importance to London. It involves a substantial modification of present rating procedure and I know that my friends, like myself, feel that the responsibility for an Amendment of this kind might very properly be accepted by the Government. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend is able to assure me that he is prepared to introduce an Amendment which substantially covers the ground I have tried to cover in the one I have moved, if he would accept this Amendment in principle and undertake to move an Amendment which contains these provisions and is substantially in the form in which this one is, I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and support such an Amendment moved by the Minister.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: This Amendment has no merits. It merely has the effect of making people believe they are getting something when, in fact, they are not getting anything. The Amendment takes 11 lines to say that the law shall remain the same. "Special cause" is in no way affected by the Amendment, and "special cause" was a matter to which attention was drawn by a large number of hon. Members on the Second Reading of the Bill. The first 11 lines of the Amendment merely summarise the present law relating to rating in London, and hon. Members can check that by referring to the standard work on rating—Ryde on Rating, at page 791. In any part of England except London, if property falls in value during the quinquennial period, you can get an interim revision, but that cannot be done in London. In London, you have to wait until the end of the five-year period.
Under the Bill and under the Amendment, in London the rights of all occupiers are taken away, and taken away up till two years after the end of the present emergency, except, of course, for "special cause," which has been narrowly defined by the courts. In London, if your property depreciates owing to general causes, you are to have no redress until two years after the present emergency. The Amendment purports to help, but in fact it does nothing. The last nine lines of the Amendment allow people to delay proceedings, thus causing

an eventual congestion of cases for revision. These last lines benefit only the collecting authority. The collecting authority will be able to go back if values subsequently rise, and the collecting authorities, particularly the rich London boroughs, are to seek shelter behind artificial assessments—assessments made in 1935; and those artificial assessments are to be made operative and are to continue until two years after the end of the present emergency. The bad London law in regard to this question of special cause is to remain in full operation and be extended until two years after the war. The Amendment is unintentionally a snare and a delusion, and I hope the Committee will reject it.

11.30 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I approach this subject with some diffidence. There are three Amendments on the Order Paper, the last of which you, Sir Dennis, have selected. The first is in my name, the second is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) and the third is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe). I attached my name also to the second Amendment because, on a superficial examination, it seemed that it might be a solution of the problem, but various people represented to me that there might be defects in it and I then drafted the Amendment which appears in my name alone and tabled it in order that the Committee might have a selection. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division drafted a much longer Amendment which is now under discussion. I do not understand it. In fact I do not understand any of the three Amendments, because we are now in the realm of rating and valuation law, in which draftsmanship is very difficult. Any hon. Member who has read the Amendments must realise the difficulties in which we are involved. Actually, I think I prefer my own Amendment, if certain words are left out of it. I am quite honest in these matters and I do not mind saying that we are face to face with a very serious difficulty in drafts-man ship. I would like my Amendment to read something like this:
Provided that, where the value of any hereditament is increased or reduced owing to any circumstances arising out of the present emergency, that circumstances shall, during so much of the said period as is subsequent


to the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty, be deemed to be a cause within the meaning of Section forty-seven of the said Act and Section forty-six of that Act shall be construed accordingly.
What is the position in London? London, for reasons, good or bad, has in the past had a system whereby a valuation was made every five years, and unless, broadly speaking, there were structural alterations, that valuation stood. In the country, on the other hand, there was an opportunity of changing the valuation if circumstances, whatever they may be, affect the value of the hereditament. The system in London, I believe, worked very well, but suddenly London finds itself faced with an entirely new set of circumstances. I would like to see the provincial law, during this period—but only during this period—applied to London. I do not think we ought to alter the law permanently with regard to London, until London has had an opportunity of considering whether it wants to change the quinquennial basis or not. But during this period, as a temporary measure, I think every citizen of London who feels that his hereditament is seriously overvalued, like the lodging housekeepers in Paddington, or the shopkeepers in Westminster—where I happen to live—or the proprietors of blocks of offices in the City, should be able to have some reality of relationship established between what they can let their premises at and the basis on which they pay rates. I find it difficult to understand the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division—for whom I have the greatest respect. It contains a great number of words, but what I want to know is this. If the gentleman from whom I buy my groceries in the Buckingham Palace Road finds his trade so diminished owing to evacuation that he feels he cannot go on with his business unless his landlord agrees to a reduction and the landlord agrees to that reduction, is he then entitled to say, "The value of these premises is less than it was and I want a revaluation for the purpose of rates"?
I want to be perfectly clear that every citizen, whether shopkeepers, hotel proprietors, or tenant for office purposes in that position, can without any conceivable doubt whatsoever claim the relief which I think he is entitled to have. Outside London he can have that—I speak for

England and Wales, because I do not profess to understand the Scottish position which is even more complicated. I want to give every citizen of London the same measure of freedom as is possessed by any other citizen in England and Wales. I do not want to prejudice the problem when the war is over. London should have its own system or should adapt the provincial system during the lifetime of this Bill as the case may be. I am not satisfied as yet that the Amendment before the Committee gives us that effectively, but if the Minister can show satisfactorily that it will give us that, I shall be pleased to vote for it. If he indicates that it is limited in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) I think that we shall have to press for an Amendment which is rather more satisfactory at a later stage.

11.38 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Second Reading of this Bill showed, I think, a greater unanimity in this House than the passage of any Bill in my short experience, but there is no doubt that the House was not satisfied that if the Bill passed as it stood it would in any way meet the situation and that some further legislation was absolutely essential to be brought in at the earliest possible moment in order to meet a very severe and disastrous situation which beset so many people in various boroughs in London. I speak particularly of my own constituency, which has been more hardly hit than any other.
I am in a considerable quandary about this Amendment. I desire what my hon. Friend opposite desires and what the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) also desires, that anybody who has a case of loss through depreciation in the value of their property directly or indirectly brought about by the war should be able to state their case and have it considered as a matter for reassessment. That in common justice ought to be carried out. We are told that it cannot be done for administrative purposes and that complete revaluation cannot take place. The hon. Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) who moved the Amendment has assured me that all the cases which I have put to him, including cases of hotels, apartment houses, boarding houses and the small traders and


others who have been directly or indirectly affected by the war can be dealt with under this Amendment and a reassessment can be undertaken. If that is so, I am prepared to support the Amendment. On the other hand, if the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) is right, that this is not the case and that nothing is being done by the Amendment, it is impossible for me to support it, because it will not achieve my object.
It is extremely difficult for one who is not an expert lawyer on the rating law to decide. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurance on this matter. The Government stated on Second Reading that they fully realised the serious position in which so many people had been placed in London and that they were seeking a solution of the problem. Time is all important and these people cannot wait for a solution. They must have some immediate relief and the hope that the strenuous efforts and great sacrifices which many of them have made, will not have been made in vain; otherwise they will lose not only their businesses and the large sums they have sunk in them, but in so many cases all their life's savings. I welcome the Amendment if it will carry out the purpose for which I am speaking, but I oppose it if it does not. We have had differences of opinion about it. The trouble is that the intention of the Committee is clear, but very often when a Bill becomes law the lawyers get to work and put an entirely different interpretation on it. The result is that the people for whose benefit the law was passed are often worse off than before. I hope we shall have some assurance from the Minister on this point, and that if he brings in legislation to carry out the principle which has been submitted by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division he will lay it down that all these cases which we have in mind, which arise as a result of the war, will in law be allowed to be re-assessed. It is useless for practices to go on in various boroughs in London which are not the law, for any re-assessment which is made without the authority of the law can be repudiated by the precepting authority. It is not only necessary that re-assessments should take place but that they should have the authority of the law behind them.

11.43 p.m.

Sir George Broadbridge: Speaking for the City of London I support the Amendment and agree with everything the Mover said. The matter is of extreme urgency to the City, and it is essential that something should be done to find a means of helping the rating authority out of the intolerable position in which they find themselves. This Amendment provides the means to their advantage. It is not necessary for me to go into the details affecting the City because most of the rating authorities are suffering in the way mentioned by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe). Therefore, I content myself with saying that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, and so meet the urgent need of our rating authority and authorities generally.

11.44 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): Like many other Members I am not a lawyer and therefore I find myself dealing with highly technical matters which are admittedly difficult for the layman to understand. Yet the layman has to understand them and do his best to grapple with them, and I hope the Committee will bear with me in my attempt to elucidate them. As I understand it, the quinquennial valuation which was to take place forthwith, and arrangements for which were under way, is impossible. It is administratively impossible, and if it were possible it would clearly be disadvantageous to the public weal that it should take place at this moment. Therefore, we have a postponement Bill before us.
It was on a postponement Bill that hon. Members in many parts of the House took the opportunity of saying that the situation in London was becoming very grave and indeed, in some cases, that it was intolerable, and that speedy remedy should besought. It was clear that a postponement Bill could cover only a limited field, and there were suggestions. There was that, for instance, by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton), that an Amendment should be moved here and now which would completely carry out the objects which he had in view, the assimilation of the law of London with the law of the Provinces. There was the suggestion brought forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the


Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) that a general remedy should be found for the difficulties in which many worthy people in London are placed just now. It is clear that, in this Bill at this time, that cannot be done.
The other question is, that being so, can improvement in the position be made now in this Bill? I think it is suggested that two things might be done. Restatement and clarification of the law might take place. That was one of the objects which my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey division (Sir H. Webbe) had in mind. Secondly, it was suggested that the drop in values which took place last September should not, so to speak, be Statute-barred in any amending lists which might be prepared, and from which otherwise they would be Statute-barred. The Amendment does two of those things. I do not think it would be true to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, that it does nothing at all. I gathered that he did not agree with adding the Amendment to the Bill, on the ground that it did not do anything. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington said that he was against adding the Amendment to the Bill, because it did not do everything.
I think it should be possible this evening, with the general consent of the Committee, to make an improvement in the existing position by means of what all will agree is a clarification of the law, and a further improvement in order that the drop in values which took place last September might not be Statute-barred in future amending lists. Again I, and the whole Committee, are in a difficulty. It was suggested by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that it would be better to hold over the Amendment to-night and to have an Amendment made on the Report stage; but that, as he knows, is a thing that we cannot do. Therefore, it is now or never. Again, the suggestion was made that some alteration might be made in another place, but again that is impossible; we could not do that.
We have here a long Amendment, admittedly technical. I very much hope that we shall give general assent to the adding of this Amendment to the Bill. I fully agree that we are here under difficult conditions. As I say, we are not lawyers, but we have here the highest legal advice in this House. Still, I am a

layman and the right hon. Gentleman opposite is also a layman in these matters. We are here discussing questions which may have great further repercussions, which we cannot foresee. As I am advised I think that with certain Amendments which I should wish to move we could in fact secure a sensible improvement in the position by adding this Amendment to this Bill this evening. There are two Amendments which I would wish to move, but I feel a great responsibility here not merely as the Minister of Health but as heir to the Presidents of the Local Government Board. If it is suggested in any part of the Committee that the local authorities have not been fully consulted and if the suggestion is made that local authorities should have further time to consider those changes, I should not wish to force the Committee suddenly into a decision which the Committee as a whole is not yet ready to accept. That seems to me to be a fair offer. I do not say that it will be possible—for I do not think it would be possible—to go further in this Bill than the Amendment which has been so persuasively argued by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe), but I do think it would be the greatest pity to allow to slip by an opportunity for what I consider is a sensible improvement in the present state of affairs, namely, the clarification of the existing law and a certain enlargement of the provision so as to go back at least to the commencement of the emergency.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: On the point of emergency, does the Minister mean September, 1938, as that is when it started? That is very important.

Mr. Elliot: Do not let us get into argument across the Floor of the Committee, because it is difficult enough to present this argument. The emergency I have in mind is the onset of the war in September last. I am thinking of August, September, and October. I hope that we shall be able to agree even to-night to certain manuscript Amendments which I should like to move. I wish to carry the whole Committee with me on this occasion, but I am most anxious not to seem to take advantage of the fact that the hour is late or that there has been lack of time for the Committee to consider it, since it was only 24 hours ago that this long Amendment found itself upon the Order Paper. I


should hope very much to keep faith with every section of the Committee, if necessary by reporting Progress now. We are in Committee, and therefore it is possible for me to speak again, but I put forward that suggestion with the hope that it meets with general approval.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I desire to express my gratification at the right hon. Gentleman's willingness, if necessary, to report Progress on the Bill, because on balance I think that would be the wisest thing to happen. We have a situation of some difficulty. There was the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, and the Government came in for criticism from some of their own supporters. There were evidently discussions between the Government and their supporters on the matters in dispute, but at the same time the Government themselves opened up negotiations with representatives of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Standing Joint Committee. Two meetings have taken place, and we reached substantial agreement to-day. It has generally been customary that wherever possible these matters should be the subject of friendly negotiation and agreement, if possible, between responsible Ministers and responsible leaders of local authorities, subject always to the House of Commons. We seem to have got into some three-cornered negotiations here, as a result of which, at the end of the day, while the local authorities of London are willing to do business with the Minister, I do not think it is consistent with the dignity of these great local authorities that we should be involved in a private deal between the Minister and his supporters on the back benches. In the circumstances, if this matter could be postponed, I think it could be regularised. I am not prepared to say that there will be any great difference in the result, but if we are to do business with the Minister we are entitled to expect that, not only the substance, but the form, of the agreement which we reached shall be carried out.

11.57 P.m.

Sir H. Williams: Let us be quite clear. There are three parties to this issue: the Government, the rate-collecting authorities of London, and the citizens. In this matter, the local authorities do not necessarily represent the citizens. I do

not want the right hon. Gentleman opposite to think that the only people to be considered are the London County Council and the Metropolitan borough councils. I am more concerned with the interests of the citizens than with the dignity of the local authorities.

The Chairman: So as to put the discussion in order, I must point out that the Debate must now turn entirely on the question of whether I am to report Progress. That has been discussed, but not, I think, actually moved. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will move to report Progress.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

11.58 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I feel that there is a point that must be considered here. Before we conclude, may I appeal to the Attorney-General to do something, by way of intervention, to stop the courts from acting as they are now acting, and as they must act as things are at present; and to stop actions which are resulting in distraint in order to secure the payment of rates? Cannot he do something to shelter these people, until the House of Commons comes to some decision?

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to speak to the Motion to report Progress, because this Bill does not concern London only. The major part of the value of England and Wales is outside London. While the situation of London is peculiar, this Bill also applies to the provinces. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake during the time when the Bill is under further consideration to produce, for the guidance of local authorities outside London, the report of the Departmental Committee on possible cases of hardship under the existing law, which arose out of the original postponement of valuations outside London? This Bill, so far as the authorities outside London are concerned, is merely a Bill to continue an existing postponement. There would have been a quinquennial valuation now, outside London, but for a previous postponement Act. The situation outside London is undoubtedly very serious. The Central Valuation Committee has advised the rating authorities and the county valuation committees that the proper way of assessing the gross value of certain


properties is very different from the assessment which has taken place up to the moment. If they are right there is, and has been, a continuing breach of the law of valuation for a considerable time. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has received this report, but he has up to the present declined to publish the recommendations. I say frankly that I have not the slightest information of what they are, but if the valuation is to be still further postponed, the country should have the advantage of knowing the effect of that report.
During the further consideration of this matter, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider whether it would be advisable to delete the provinces entirely from the Bill. It is a great pity that the law of rating with regard to London and with regard to the remainder of the country has always been considered in separate Measures, but that in this Measure they should be brought together, although in fact the situation with regard to the two is so different. I hope he will give consideration to the point that I urged upon him during the Second Reading that he should consider whether it is not opportune to promote some legislation, if that is what the Departmental Committee recommend, that will remove the doubts with regard to the position outside London. I suggest that if Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill were made a separate Bill altogether, it would probably be more convenient for reference, and it would certainly make it easier to deal with any further amendment of the law that might be called for as a result of the rating situation outside London.

12.4 a.m.

Sir H. Webbe: I should not have intervened again at so late an hour were it not for the entirely unnecessary imputations made by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) in regard to me. I was not surprised at that kind of remark from that particular right hon. Gentleman, whom I know only too well in other directions. I submit that I was perfectly in order in placing on the Paper the Amendment which I have moved. I was equally in order, in the concluding sentences of my speech, in putting to the Committee my view that the subject matter of the Amendment was of such importance that it might properly

have been the subject of an Amendment moved with the responsibilty of the Government.
I offered, as I believed, and as I still believe, quite properly, to withdraw my Amendment, if my right hon. Friend would give me an assurance that he would move an Amendment which was substantially to the same effect as my Amendment. If an action of that kind, which I have seen paralleled in my short experience of the House, is to be interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as forming part of some kind of improper or clandestine arrangement, then I fear that private Members will find it very difficult to know where they are. I do complain, and I do think I am justified in doing so, that the right hon. Gentleman should make what was an entirely improper and unwarranted attack on me because I had taken a course which, I believe, was justified in the interests of the citizens of London. Therefore, I felt obliged to intervene and enter a protest against conduct of that kind, which is most difficult for a private Member to understand.

Mr. Davidson: I want to say that, if other Members take part in this discussion, I hope they will not use the opportunity for bringing out some bitterness they may have felt at past defeats.

The Chairman: I am not quite sure that I was right in allowing the hon. Member who has just sat down to go as far as he did, but I did not know what his object was or what he was going to say. I must now put the Question.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.